Bus delays and lack of info from Transport for London

[infobleep]

Why do TfL not bother to report a lot of bus delays. Is it that it happens almost every day so they don't consider it to be a delay or are they only concerned about delays on the roads they maintain?

I have come across delays being mentioned very occasionally but that is the rare exception rather than the rule.

Even if your bus journey is timed for half an hour, I think there are times when it could be quicker to walk, especially if you have to wait 10 minutes before your bus even turns up.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[plcd1]

I think it depends on whether they have been told. Obviously the control room does have feeds to what happens on the TLRN. However they won't know about other issues unless the public / police / bus companies tell them. I've tweeted them about road accidents that I've seen causing huge queues. They do a check and then they'll tweet about it. They can't inform people if they don't know. Furthermore bus company I-Bus rooms may be so busy with dealing with the impact on the bus service that they can't call Centrecomm to tell them.

It's far from ideal I agree and more could be done to consistently and accurately report the news they do have. Far too little good use of info about planned disruptions - the public are left to search for those themselves. Not much info via Twitter, bus stop countdown displays or via I-Bus on the buses themselves. Ironically TfL are now overloading bus displays with info about tube, TfL Rail and Overground planned works.

 

[Busaholic]

I suspect that if TfL actually ran their own buses and didn't contract the routes out there MIGHT be greater consideration to providing the public with more meaningful information. The present system of tendering means that one company will not want its routes to be compared to another company's disfavourably - this is human nature and one has to accept it. It wouldn't matter that company A had no responsibility for the delays: perception is everything, and they might think their reputation was at stake. Having said that, I still don't necessarily believe a state of nirvana would be reached if TfL took over the buses themselves, which is not a course I'd advocate, at present at least!

 

[infobleep]

I think it depends on whether they have been told. Obviously the control room does have feeds to what happens on the TLRN. However they won't know about other issues unless the public / police / bus companies tell them. I've tweeted them about road accidents that I've seen causing huge queues. They do a check and then they'll tweet about it. They can't inform people if they don't know. Furthermore bus company I-Bus rooms may be so busy with dealing with the impact on the bus service that they can't call Centrecomm to tell them.

It's far from ideal I agree and more could be done to consistently and accurately report the news they do have. Far too little good use of info about planned disruptions - the public are left to search for those themselves. Not much info via Twitter, bus stop countdown displays or via I-Bus on the buses themselves. Ironically TfL are now overloading bus displays with info about tube, TfL Rail and Overground planned works.

I suspect that if TfL actually ran their own buses and didn't contract the routes out there MIGHT be greater consideration to providing the public with more meaningful information. The present system of tendering means that one company will not want its routes to be compared to another company's disfavourably - this is human nature and one has to accept it. It wouldn't matter that company A had no responsibility for the delays: perception is everything, and they might think their reputation was at stake. Having said that, I still don't necessarily believe a state of nirvana would be reached if TfL took over the buses themselves, which is not a course I'd advocate, at present at least!

Thanks for replies. Knowing the tube information or bus delays for parts of the network you never use when you rarely get information about delays that does affect you can be annoying at times.

Perhaps they need a social media message of if you see something please tweet us so we can put the message out wider and incorporate the details into our live bus feeds. So the public become their ears.

Similar to how they have adverts about if you see anything suspicious contact them.

When I tweeted TfL bus alerts yesterday they did tell me what the cause was. Whether that the got added to the live feed I don't know.

If there is disruption in future I will consider tweeting them as they may well not be aware of it. London is a massive network.

Google tell you on their maps how freely traffic is flowing. Do TfL gather such information and could they make that public?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[plcd1]

I suspect that if TfL actually ran their own buses and didn't contract the routes out there MIGHT be greater consideration to providing the public with more meaningful information. The present system of tendering means that one company will not want its routes to be compared to another company's disfavourably - this is human nature and one has to accept it. It wouldn't matter that company A had no responsibility for the delays: perception is everything, and they might think their reputation was at stake. Having said that, I still don't necessarily believe a state of nirvana would be reached if TfL took over the buses themselves, which is not a course I'd advocate, at present at least!

The performance stats for every route are published every quarter. When a route is retendered all bidders are provided with detailed performance data for the route. Therefore there is next to nothing that is genuinely "confidential" about an operator's performance. TfL also publish rankings for operators of high and low frequency services so the reputation of operators is there for everyone to see. There are also "most improved" routes rankings by boroughs - again the operator name is quoted.

I do understand your point but given the level of disclosure operators can't avoid comparisons or "reputational" damage. Some routes are just horrendous to operate regardless of who the operator is. Some operators are simply very poor at some of their garages and, of course, many of them "take a punt" on vehicle numbers to win a route and then 3 schedule changes later they release they underbid and have to put an extra bus in (at their cost) to make it work. Happens all the time and is probably the worst aspect of tendering because those who bid with the "right" number of vehicles don't win or retain the work but the route later ends up with the number of buses they bid with.

 

[Tetchytyke]

3 schedule changes later they release they underbid and have to put an extra bus in (at their cost) to make it work. Happens all the time and is probably the worst aspect of tendering

Depends which way you look at it. If the operator is paying for the extra buses, instead of TfL, it isn't necessarily such a bad thing.

The TfL buses twitter feed do mention delays to buses fairly frequently, and some of the tube twitter feeds do too if there are very significant delays in a specific area, e.g. Marble Arch. iBus will also sometimes mention significant issues, though this is more hit and miss. Given the sheer number of routes I don't see how the rainbow boards system could ever work for buses, though.

 

[matt_world2004]

Tfl rely on bus operators contacting centrecomm before they can inform the public about curtailments and delays

 

[infobleep]

Tfl rely on bus operators contacting centrecomm before they can inform the public about curtailments and delays

If the bus operators don't have the time to report issues, may be it should be opened up to the travelling public as well.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[plcd1]

If the bus operators don't have the time to report issues, may be it should be opened up to the travelling public as well.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

It is open via Twitter but it isn't advertised. I suspect part of the issue is if it was widely advertised some people would send in hoax or false info thus wasting time for the guy on the Twitter desk and at Centrecomm. I can see both sides of the argument here.

If people ask "why hasn't a no16 bus come for 20 mins?" then they do check and will say if there is a traffic problem or even if there is a staffing issue. That may then turn into a more general tweet advising of delays.

I've raised the issue over consistency of info via the status page, twitter and Countdown displays on a forum that I know Leon Daniels reads. While he hasn't responded directly I know the issue will have reached his eyes and, no doubt, via many other people / sources. I think TfL have clamped down on the number of staff handling the social media channels plus they've reduced the number of accounts too. I suspect there is very little flex to give a comprehensive service because the twitter people can also programmes messages into the Countdown displays. Centrecomm people do the planned disruption updates for the Bus Status page but that tends to be a "cut and paste" from whatever the local controller has sent in terms of a "Notice of Event" (NOE). That's why the wording and format varies so much on those notices. It would be far better if there was a standardised format or an "editor" for the status updates but given the budget pressures that ain't gonna happen.

 

[infobleep]

It is open via Twitter but it isn't advertised. I suspect part of the issue is if it was widely advertised some people would send in hoax or false info thus wasting time for the guy on the Twitter desk and at Centrecomm. I can see both sides of the argument here.

If people ask "why hasn't a no16 bus come for 20 mins?" then they do check and will say if there is a traffic problem or even if there is a staffing issue. That may then turn into a more general tweet advising of delays.

I've raised the issue over consistency of info via the status page, twitter and Countdown displays on a forum that I know Leon Daniels reads. While he hasn't responded directly I know the issue will have reached his eyes and, no doubt, via many other people / sources. I think TfL have clamped down on the number of staff handling the social media channels plus they've reduced the number of accounts too. I suspect there is very little flex to give a comprehensive service because the twitter people can also programmes messages into the Countdown displays. Centrecomm people do the planned disruption updates for the Bus Status page but that tends to be a "cut and paste" from whatever the local controller has sent in terms of a "Notice of Event" (NOE). That's why the wording and format varies so much on those notices. It would be far better if there was a standardised format or an "editor" for the status updates but given the budget pressures that ain't gonna happen.

Intresting reply. Thanks. Not the sort of reply I imagine I'd get if I asked TfL about it.

I like to know how it all works and understand why something can't be done as much as why it can.

I take it, it doesn't cost much to provide the Underground updates on the bus route statuses?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[matt_world2004]

Intresting reply. Thanks. Not the sort of reply I imagine I'd get if I asked TfL about it.

I like to know how it all works and understand why something can't be done as much as why it can.

I take it, it doesn't cost much to provide the Underground updates on the bus route statuses?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Each countdown stop has a 3g/2g connection I imagine it's a fixed cost for each stop, they are not going to be sending gigabit es of data to the stop are they.

 

[plcd1]

Intresting reply. Thanks. Not the sort of reply I imagine I'd get if I asked TfL about it.

I like to know how it all works and understand why something can't be done as much as why it can.

I take it, it doesn't cost much to provide the Underground updates on the bus route statuses?

If on your last point you mean the on bus messages about planned rail closures then I think, but don't know for certain, that this can be done centrally and downloaded to the buses. The system seems to be clever enough to work with specific messages for a given time period and then they're no longer displayed. For example on bus messages about the GOBLIN closure changed when the full line closure kicked in last weekend. Given the system is largely automatic then all it takes is someone typing in the message, the time period and the relevant routes and pressing send and that's it. Pretty straightforward once the message script is agreed.

If you meant something else then you'll need to provide a bit more detail.

 

[Busaholic]

The performance stats for every route are published every quarter. When a route is retendered all bidders are provided with detailed performance data for the route. Therefore there is next to nothing that is genuinely "confidential" about an operator's performance. TfL also publish rankings for operators of high and low frequency services so the reputation of operators is there for everyone to see. There are also "most improved" routes rankings by boroughs - again the operator name is quoted.

I do understand your point but given the level of disclosure operators can't avoid comparisons or "reputational" damage. Some routes are just horrendous to operate regardless of who the operator is. Some operators are simply very poor at some of their garages and, of course, many of them "take a punt" on vehicle numbers to win a route and then 3 schedule changes later they release they underbid and have to put an extra bus in (at their cost) to make it work. Happens all the time and is probably the worst aspect of tendering because those who bid with the "right" number of vehicles don't win or retain the work but the route later ends up with the number of buses they bid with.

My visits to London get fewer and fewer, regrettably. because of other commitments but I can and do from time to time follow what is happening in a particular part of London by focussing on a bus stop via the internet and seeing what is being displayed there on the 'next bus' screen. As I stay with my sister when I am in London and she has lived in the Streatham/ West Dulwich area for decades, in different properties, I tend to focus on the routes I use when I visit her. The 3 and 159 nave been the routes I've been most interested in for a long time, and they do of course serve the same ground between Brixton and Oxford Circus, save the bridge they each use to cross the Thames, although even that was the same for many years. I noticed a year or so ago that when I looked at stops in Kennington for instance, both northbound and southbound, that on the whole the 3, operated by Abellio from their Battersea garage, seemed to run a better service than the 159, operated by Arriva London South from Brixton garage, both in spacing of buses and whether any were being turned short, both based on the advertised frequency, the 159 being generally more prolific. However, when I visited the area, at a time when my sister lived with a bus stop for the 3 outside her house, I found that in practice I could wait at Piccadiily Circus for a direct no. 3, having let two or three 159s go by, and find that the Crystal Palace bound no. 3 would suddenly on arrival at Brixton police station be pr
onounced as turning at the next stop. This was more than frustrating, even for someone like myself not paying for the journey. This curtailment would not have been flagged at the preceding stops, whereas I noticed 159s leaving Streatham were already being shown as turning short at Oxford Circus, Trafalgar Square, etc, Now Abellio have the 159 too, and I do wonder whether the reasons they have acquired it are as above board as they should be. Are there many more late -announced curtailments than previously? I don't know, and please don't think I'm getting at Abellio, it's just the example I'm most aware of.

Every operator will put a gloss on their performance, and stats can always be manipulated, as every politician worthy of the name has always known.

 

[infobleep]

Each countdown stop has a 3g/2g connection I imagine it's a fixed cost for each stop, they are not going to be sending gigabit es of data to the stop are they.

I was thinking more the designing of it so that the updates get sent, rather than the cost of it actually sending. So a programming point of view. I don't ever see underground updates at the stops though, just on the smart phone /tablet apps.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[plcd1]

My visits to London get fewer and fewer, regrettably. because of other commitments but I can and do from time to time follow what is happening in a particular part of London by focussing on a bus stop via the internet and seeing what is being displayed there on the 'next bus' screen. As I stay with my sister when I am in London and she has lived in the Streatham/ West Dulwich area for decades, in different properties, I tend to focus on the routes I use when I visit her. The 3 and 159 nave been the routes I've been most interested in for a long time, and they do of course serve the same ground between Brixton and Oxford Circus, save the bridge they each use to cross the Thames, although even that was the same for many years. I noticed a year or so ago that when I looked at stops in Kennington for instance, both northbound and southbound, that on the whole the 3, operated by Abellio from their Battersea garage, seemed to run a better service than the 159, operated by Arriva London South from Brixton garage, both in spacing of buses and whether any were being turned short, both based on the advertised frequency, the 159 being generally more prolific. However, when I visited the area, at a time when my sister lived with a bus stop for the 3 outside her house, I found that in practice I could wait at Piccadiily Circus for a direct no. 3, having let two or three 159s go by, and find that the Crystal Palace bound no. 3 would suddenly on arrival at Brixton police station be pronounced as turning at the next stop. This was more than frustrating, even for someone like myself not paying for the journey. This curtailment would not have been flagged at the preceding stops, whereas I noticed 159s leaving Streatham were already being shown as turning short at Oxford Circus, Trafalgar Square, etc, Now Abellio have the 159 too, and I do wonder whether the reasons they have acquired it are as above board as they should be. Are there many more late -announced curtailments than previously? I don't know, and please don't think I'm getting at Abellio, it's just the example I'm most aware of.

Every operator will put a gloss on their performance, and stats can always be manipulated, as every politician worthy of the name has always known.

I don't use either of those routes on a regular basis. however based on commentary elsewhere from those who do then Abellio have a bit of a reputation on route 3 for a load of curtailments on s/b trips. The other nightmare, depending on which garage is running it, is being tipped out on to another bus at Kennington Church because of poor running. late driver changes, no driver available. The 159 is scheduled to run more frequently than the 3 so no great shock that you saw more when actually waiting for one. I've no real idea how well Abellio are doing with the 159 these days. A look at the relevant TfL performance graphs shows pretty decent stats for both the 3 and 159 but, as you say, there are ways of creating those good levels of performance that may not perfectly align with passenger expectations.

 

[Busaholic]

I don't use either of those routes on a regular basis. however based on commentary elsewhere from those who do then Abellio have a bit of a reputation on route 3 for a load of curtailments on s/b trips. The other nightmare, depending on which garage is running it, is being tipped out on to another bus at Kennington Church because of poor running. late driver changes, no driver available. The 159 is scheduled to run more frequently than the 3 so no great shock that you saw more when actually waiting for one. I've no real idea how well Abellio are doing with the 159 these days. A look at the relevant TfL performance graphs shows pretty decent stats for both the 3 and 159 but, as you say, there are ways of creating those good levels of performance that may not perfectly align with passenger expectations.

The annoying thing was that passengers de-bussed off a s/b 159 at Brixton Station would have the choice of an (arriving) empty 109, 118 or 250 to complete their journey, plus other routes almost all the way to Streatham Station, whereas if you were tipped off a no.3 you could only wait for another 3 if you wanted anywhere beyond Herne Hill i.e. 90% of passengers. Arriva operating the 3 from Norwood would help the situation!