|
Post by Nathan on Oct 14, 2014 13:26:55 GMT
Last week,my brother was playing around with LVF after i showed him how to use it. As well as looking for T61 (Which is his favourite bus) He also asked me what route is the most frequent in LondonĀ I Didn't know the answer to that question , So thats why I'm asking you guys! Also, i didn't have enough space to put this in the title, but what route has the most PVR? PVR and frequency are too different things. Just because a route has a high PVR doesn't mean it has a high frequency too and vice versa. Route with the highest PVR tend to be high in frequency. Which makes logical sense, really.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 14, 2014 15:09:45 GMT
Last week,my brother was playing around with LVF after i showed him how to use it. As well as looking for T61 (Which is his favourite bus) He also asked me what route is the most frequent in LondonĀ I Didn't know the answer to that question , So thats why I'm asking you guys! Also, i didn't have enough space to put this in the title, but what route has the most PVR? PVR and frequency are too different things. Just because a route has a high PVR doesn't mean it has a high frequency too and vice versa. I don't think he was confusing the two as he mentioned he didn't have space to put PVR in the title so in a sense, he was asking two questions but trying to fit them into one topic.
|
|
|
Post by ajw on Oct 15, 2014 0:26:00 GMT
PVR and frequency are too different things. Just because a route has a high PVR doesn't mean it has a high frequency too and vice versa. Route with the highest PVR tend to be high in frequency. Which makes logical sense, really. No it isn't actually. It would be logical if all routes had the same running time end to end but they don't do they? Some take longer some are shorter etc. Lets say you have route 1 that takes 30 minutes one way end to end with a 5 minute frequency. So what is the PVR of this route? 12 (yeah I know it will be more but lets keep it simple for a moment). Now route 2 takes 40 minutes one way end to end, again with a 5 minute frequency. What is the PVR? 16 (again yeah it will be more probably closer to 20). So which route has the higher frequency? Neither, they are both 5 minutes. Now which has the higher PVR? Clearly route 2 but 4 buses. So care to explain the logic of how frequency and PVR are the same? Oh where I said to keep it simple, if you factor in stand time at each end etc, route 1 would probably need a PVR closer to 15 and route 2 closer to 20, so just widens the gap anyway, thus proving further that frequency and PVR are two separate beasts. Of course there are lots of other issues too to factor in but they don't change the basic premise.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Oct 15, 2014 1:59:24 GMT
Route with the highest PVR tend to be high in frequency. Which makes logical sense, really. No it isn't actually. It would be logical if all routes had the same running time end to end but they don't do they? Some take longer some are shorter etc. Lets say you have route 1 that takes 30 minutes one way end to end with a 5 minute frequency. So what is the PVR of this route? 12 (yeah I know it will be more but lets keep it simple for a moment). Now route 2 takes 40 minutes one way end to end, again with a 5 minute frequency. What is the PVR? 16 (again yeah it will be more probably closer to 20). So which route has the higher frequency? Neither, they are both 5 minutes. Now which has the higher PVR? Clearly route 2 but 4 buses. So care to explain the logic of how frequency and PVR are the same? Oh where I said to keep it simple, if you factor in stand time at each end etc, route 1 would probably need a PVR closer to 15 and route 2 closer to 20, so just widens the gap anyway, thus proving further that frequency and PVR are two separate beasts. Of course there are lots of other issues too to factor in but they don't change the basic premise. The examples you gave don't factor in traffic hotspots, route lengths, and general demand for the routes. For all we know, route 1 could be half the length of route 2 and go through areas which are not prone to (loads of) traffic. Now if we look at some real examples: - Route 18, PVR 50, 4 min freq. Mon-Fri - Route 25, PVR 60, 3-4 min freq. Mon-Fri - Route 38, PVR 59, 3-4 min freq. Mon-Fri - Route 73, PVR 52, 3-4 min freq. Mon-Fri Do you see the pattern here? These routes have the highest PVRs in London, and have the highest frequency in comparison to some other routes. You can tell by having a quick look at londonbusroutes.net. Route with a PVR lower than 40 tend to have a frequency greater than or equal to 5 min. Have a look for yourself. And for the record, I'm not claiming that PVR and frequencies are the same. I'm saying that there is a positive correlation between the two. The higher the PVR, the greater the frequency.
|
|
|
Post by ajw on Oct 16, 2014 0:45:45 GMT
The higher the PVR, the greater the frequency. You (conveniently) forgot the bus with the highest frequency in London into your figures. Could it be because it disproves your logic. That route has been mentioned before and is the 521 with a peak frequency of 2-3 minutes and a PVR of 31. Compared to the top 4 you have that is a frequency 1.5 times most of them, but a PVR of 1/3 to 1/2. Oops theory blown. The website you linked to gives the real reason why these routes have a high PVR, will get to that in a second. But firstly you say my examples don't factor in hotspots, route lengths etc, that is not quite true. If you take a look I talk about end to end running time, logically that would take length and traffic into account based on worst case scenario. Distance would only matter if traffic were even on the whole route, which as we know is not the case, so what matters is end to end running time which londonbusroutes.net lists for each routes. So lets look at the figures for your routes plus the 521. I will use worst case figures because that is what determines PVR. 521, end to end running time 34m 18, end to end running time 90m 25, end to end running time 121m 38, end to end running time 84m 73, end to end running time 90m. So lets look at the 521. With an end to end running time of 34 minutes and frequency of 2.5 minutes, and lets say 5 minute turn around at each end, one bus takes 75 minutes to do one round trip. So to do this run under these circumstances you need to divide the round trip time by the frequency to dertimes the number of buses require, or if you will the PVR, so 75 divided by 2.5 equals, 30. Oh pretty closed to the 31 PVR listed for the 521 isn't it? Ok the 18. Round trip time plus turn around, I will give extra this time because it takes so long, so lets say 190 minutes. Frequency is 4 minutes. So 190/4 = 47.5, which again is very close to 50 vehicle PVR the route has. Now the 25 breaks the rules, but as we all know due to the fact that not all buses do the full route. Just complicates things way too much. The 38, round trip with 10 minutes at each end is 188m, peak frequency is 3m, which gives PVR of 62. Again however not all buses do the whole length, so again pretty close to the advertised PVR of 59. The 73, end to end with 10 minutes at each end is 200m. peak frequency is 3-4 minutes, so PVR of 57. Again slightly higher than what the advertised PVR is, but again maybe at peak some buses short run. So I think I have proved by the 521 that the bus with the highest frequency is not the bus with the highest PVR, not EVEN close by a long shot. What your statements proves is 4 of the buses with the highest PVR also have the longest end to end time. So I ask the OP, what do you want the route with the highest frequency or the route with the highest PVR.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2014 0:56:20 GMT
No it isn't actually. It would be logical if all routes had the same running time end to end but they don't do they? Some take longer some are shorter etc. Lets say you have route 1 that takes 30 minutes one way end to end with a 5 minute frequency. So what is the PVR of this route? 12 (yeah I know it will be more but lets keep it simple for a moment). Now route 2 takes 40 minutes one way end to end, again with a 5 minute frequency. What is the PVR? 16 (again yeah it will be more probably closer to 20). So which route has the higher frequency? Neither, they are both 5 minutes. Now which has the higher PVR? Clearly route 2 but 4 buses. So care to explain the logic of how frequency and PVR are the same? Oh where I said to keep it simple, if you factor in stand time at each end etc, route 1 would probably need a PVR closer to 15 and route 2 closer to 20, so just widens the gap anyway, thus proving further that frequency and PVR are two separate beasts. Of course there are lots of other issues too to factor in but they don't change the basic premise. The examples you gave don't factor in traffic hotspots, route lengths, and general demand for the routes. For all we know, route 1 could be half the length of route 2 and go through areas which are not prone to (loads of) traffic. Now if we look at some real examples: - Route 18, PVR 50, 4 min freq. Mon-Fri - Route 25, PVR 60, 3-4 min freq. Mon-Fri - Route 38, PVR 59, 3-4 min freq. Mon-Fri - Route 73, PVR 52, 3-4 min freq. Mon-Fri Do you see the pattern here? These routes have the highest PVRs in London, and have the highest frequency in comparison to some other routes. You can tell by having a quick look at londonbusroutes.net. Route with a PVR lower than 40 tend to have a frequency greater than or equal to 5 min. Have a look for yourself. And for the record, I'm not claiming that PVR and frequencies are the same. I'm saying that there is a positive correlation between the two. The higher the PVR, the greater the frequency.I understand exactly what your saying which is "Whilst there are exceptions, most of the time, high PVR routes TEND to have high frequencies"
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Oct 16, 2014 7:31:21 GMT
The higher the PVR, the greater the frequency. You (conveniently) forgot the bus with the highest frequency in London into your figures. Could it be because it disproves your logic. That route has been mentioned before and is the 521 with a peak frequency of 2-3 minutes and a PVR of 31. Compared to the top 4 you have that is a frequency 1.5 times most of them, but a PVR of 1/3 to 1/2. Oops theory blown. So I think I have proved by the 521 that the bus with the highest frequency is not the bus with the highest PVR, not EVEN close by a long shot. What your statements proves is 4 of the buses with the highest PVR also have the longest end to end time. So I ask the OP, what do you want the route with the highest frequency or the route with the highest PVR. I'd just like to point out that as I'm typing this londonbusroutes.net is not availible so some figures may be incorrect.Well of course, there are anomalies in my theory. Such as the 521 example you gave (such a short route might I add), having a high frequency and a much lower PVR than the examples I gave. But again, distance is a factor you did not consider. 5 miles compared to the 9 miles the 18 has to travel. Or the 11 miles for the 25. Come on. You can hardly compare those figures when they're almost or more than twice as long as the 521. In any case, I still stand by what I said originally: Routes with the highest PVR tend to be high in frequency. Which makes logical sense, really. Oh, and to answer that last question, the thread is called 'What is the most frequent route in London?' in which the answer to that question is technically the 521 as people have mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by ajw on Oct 16, 2014 10:03:24 GMT
Well of course, there are anomalies in my theory. Such as the 521 example you gave (such a short route might I add), having a high frequency and a much lower PVR than the examples I gave. But again, distance is a factor you did not consider. 5 miles compared to the 9 miles the 18 has to travel. Or the 11 miles for the 25. Come on. You can hardly compare those figures when they're almost or more than twice as long as the 521. In any case, I still stand by what I said originally: . Do you not understand what a PVR is? It is peak vehicle requirement. Distance is not a factor. What is a factor is HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO DO A ROUND TRIP. This will then dictate how many buses you require to provide a given frequency of service. For example you may have a route in the country that is 5 miles and it takes 30 minutes round trip, or a route that is 5 miles in central London that takes 120 minutes round trip. The important figure is the TIME IT TAKES not HOW FAR IS IT. Time as I said factors in distance, road congestion, number of stops, traffic lights etc etc. Oh, and to answer that last question, the thread is called 'What is the most frequent route in London?' in which the answer to that question is technically the 521 as people have mentioned. That may well be the title of the thread, but the 2nd line of the post asked what route had the highest PVR. I had hope to clear up that PVR and frequency are two different things because some of these posts have confused the two IMO, and quite clearly the route with the highest frequency is not the route with the highest PVR. Not even by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Oct 16, 2014 10:09:26 GMT
Well of course, there are anomalies in my theory. Such as the 521 example you gave (such a short route might I add), having a high frequency and a much lower PVR than the examples I gave. But again, distance is a factor you did not consider. 5 miles compared to the 9 miles the 18 has to travel. Or the 11 miles for the 25. Come on. You can hardly compare those figures when they're almost or more than twice as long as the 521. In any case, I still stand by what I said originally: . Do you not understand what a PVR is? It is peak vehicle requirement. Distance is not a factor. What is a factor is HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO DO A ROUND TRIP. This will then dictate how many buses you require to provide a given frequency of service. For example you may have a route in the country that is 5 miles and it takes 30 minutes round trip, or a route that is 5 miles in central London that takes 120 minutes end to end. The important figure is the TIME IT TAKES not HOW FAR IS IT. Time as I said factors in distance, road congestion, number of stops, traffic lights etc etc. Oh, and to answer that last question, the thread is called 'What is the most frequent route in London?' in which the answer to that question is technically the 521 as people have mentioned. That may well be the title of the thread, but the 2nd line of the post asked what route had the highest PVR. I had hope to clear up that PVR and frequency are two different things because some of these posts have confused the two IMO, and quite clearly the route with the highest frequency is not the route with the highest PVR. Not even by a long shot. Historically the highest PVR was 126(!) on the 12 when it ran from 6 garages. Regarding frequency, in the early sixties I went to school in Walworth and used the 155 to the Elephant and cut thru' the back streets. On one evening it was when the 'biscuit tin' was being built, I noticed that in London Road there was a continuous queue of buses right back to St Georges Circus. The first 14 yes fourteen were all 109s! And this was in an era when car ownership was not as common as it is today.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Oct 16, 2014 16:03:57 GMT
The statement such as "the higher the PVR, the greater the frequency", is true to some extent - there will be a correlation, with more extreme variance at the lowest and highest PVRs. In the context of what the OP was asking, it's an irrelevant statement.
Vehicle requirement = Cycle time in minutes/Service interval in minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 16:41:33 GMT
Technically, the 57 and the 131 combo provides 4 minutes per bus from Kingston --> Raynes Park to Tooting Broadway in the morning, total PVR is 46. However, IF we Classify both routes are the same (90% simillar minus New Malden) Then we can say it is also another Top Frequency london bus route that dosen't run in Zone 1.
And I also Believe that the 72 has a 4 minute short journeys from Roehampton to Hammersmith, According to its schedule? (Correct me if wrong)
|
|
|
Post by DLA 365 on Jan 12, 2015 17:10:11 GMT
Technically, the 57 and the 131 combo provides 4 minutes per bus from Kingston --> Raynes Park to Tooting Broadway in the morning, total PVR is 46. However, IF we Classify both routes are the same (90% simillar minus New Malden) Then we can say it is also another Top Frequency london bus route that dosen't run in Zone 1. The 131 takes approximately 8 minutes longer than the 57 between Raynes Park and Kingston. Considering that is the frequency of the 57, it may be worth waiting for the next 57 if you have just missed one. At night, it may be worth getting on the 131 if this comes within 4 minutes of missing the 57. As such I don't think it is fair to say that the 57 and 131 pose equal opportunities to travel between Kingston and Raynes Park.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jan 12, 2015 17:16:30 GMT
Technically, the 57 and the 131 combo provides 4 minutes per bus from Kingston --> Raynes Park to Tooting Broadway in the morning, total PVR is 46. However, IF we Classify both routes are the same (90% simillar minus New Malden) Then we can say it is also another Top Frequency london bus route that dosen't run in Zone 1. The 131 takes approximately 8 minutes longer than the 57 between Raynes Park and Kingston. Considering that is the frequency of the 57, it may be worth waiting for the next 57 if you have just missed one. At night, it may be worth getting on the 131 if this comes within 4 minutes of missing the 57. As such I don't think it is fair to say that the 57 and 131 pose equal opportunities to travel between Kingston and Raynes Park. True, but in the evenings the 131 moves more quickly than the 57, or at least it did when it was at FW! Not much disbenefit in taking whichever comes first, though during the day the 57 is of course quicker.
|
|
|
Post by DLA 365 on Jan 12, 2015 17:25:56 GMT
Indeed when the 131 was at FW, proper buses were used. The VLEs are so slow it is always worth giving the 131 a miss when they turn up
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 12, 2015 18:29:31 GMT
The 131 takes approximately 8 minutes longer than the 57 between Raynes Park and Kingston. Considering that is the frequency of the 57, it may be worth waiting for the next 57 if you have just missed one. At night, it may be worth getting on the 131 if this comes within 4 minutes of missing the 57. As such I don't think it is fair to say that the 57 and 131 pose equal opportunities to travel between Kingston and Raynes Park. True, but in the evenings the 131 moves more quickly than the 57, or at least it did when it was at FW! Not much disbenefit in taking whichever comes first, though during the day the 57 is of course quicker. I'd say during the day AND night (especially at night) the 57 is much quicker than the 131 to Kingston.
|
|