Oyster & London Buses Turning Short

[Mikey C]

Well imagine what the congestion would be like if all these cyclists left their bikes at home and decided to use the car instead!

I think it's great that the mayor is doing something positive to encourage cycling.

I doubt the majority of cyclists would drive instead, but rather would just take public transport...

Some curtailments do make sense. When you get terrible bunching going in one direction (3 buses virtually together with one of them pretty empty say) and gaps going the other way, turning one bus short will help more passengers than are inconvenienced.

 

[CatfordCat]

In terms of the general slow down of bus services, TfL are now reporting that bus use is starting to fall again - the fact that for short journeys at peak times it's often quicker to walk is assumed to be one of the factors.

(From data that's public domain, route 11 for example now has an average end to end speed of slightly less than 4 1/2 mph in peak hours)

The number of new timetables over recent months to try and improve reliability has been huge (more info here) - the curtailment of the 53 at Lambeth North is an extreme, but on many routes, extra buses have been added, or the headway slightly reduced (or both) to allow for longer (and longer) journey times.

Doing this is not a simple process - in London, TfL have to agree it (and where relevant, the additional costs) and the operator has to get a driver schedule that works. This is not always as simple as you would think, as that driver schedule has to fit within drivers' hours rules (these are on the basis that the driver MUST have a break after X amount of time, not that the driver is entitled to that break.)

As a hypothetical example, it may have been that it was possible to do 2 round trips on the 53 before the driver was legally required to take a break - now it's not quite possible if the route continues to run its full length.

Drivers are still employed on (say) an 8 hour day. If they can only now manage 2 trips on the 53 in the course of a day, you either get duties where drivers are paid for not doing anything, or you have to make arrangements for breaks somewhere else (and that means unproductive time for at least some drivers to travel there to start sequences of breaks - you can't just have drivers abandoning buses at the roadside, or leaving them at remote termini for breaks), or you drag more routes in to the process so that drivers work part of their day on the 53 and part on something else. That in turn has potential route / type training issues.

In this case, it's probable that curtailing the route was the easiest answer. (this is all speculation on my part - I am not involved in any way with route 53)

In terms of managing 'short turns' once buses are on the road - yes, you could argue that they should all be avoided, but what if there is a bunch of buses one way and a gap the other? what if one of the drivers who is running late is going to run out of hours and not be able to do their return journey?

How it's done can certainly be improved - I had an experience a few weeks back where the bus I was on got to within sight of the bus in front (which was probably running even later than the bus I was on), then my bus was held back 'to regulate the service' (the bus in front slowly disappeared in to the distance) then it was turned short. Hmph.

 

[Antman]

I doubt the majority of cyclists would drive instead, but rather would just take public transport...

Some curtailments do make sense. When you get terrible bunching going in one direction (3 buses virtually together with one of them pretty empty say) and gaps going the other way, turning one bus short will help more passengers than are inconvenienced.

Well if all cyclists 'went on strike' for a day and left the bikes at home and used their car or public transport instead I suspect London would grind to a halt.

In some circumstances such curtailments are necessary but they shouldn't be routinely done with no consideration for passengers as has become the case since I-bus was introduced.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In terms of the general slow down of bus services, TfL are now reporting that bus use is starting to fall again - the fact that for short journeys at peak times it's often quicker to walk is assumed to be one of the factors.

(From data that's public domain, route 11 for example now has an average end to end speed of slightly less than 4 1/2 mph in peak hours)

The number of new timetables over recent months to try and improve reliability has been huge (more info here) - the curtailment of the 53 at Lambeth North is an extreme, but on many routes, extra buses have been added, or the headway slightly reduced (or both) to allow for longer (and longer) journey times.

Doing this is not a simple process - in London, TfL have to agree it (and where relevant, the additional costs) and the operator has to get a driver schedule that works. This is not always as simple as you would think, as that driver schedule has to fit within drivers' hours rules (these are on the basis that the driver MUST have a break after X amount of time, not that the driver is entitled to that break.)

As a hypothetical example, it may have been that it was possible to do 2 round trips on the 53 before the driver was legally required to take a break - now it's not quite possible if the route continues to run its full length.

Drivers are still employed on (say) an 8 hour day. If they can only now manage 2 trips on the 53 in the course of a day, you either get duties where drivers are paid for not doing anything, or you have to make arrangements for breaks somewhere else (and that means unproductive time for at least some drivers to travel there to start sequences of breaks - you can't just have drivers abandoning buses at the roadside, or leaving them at remote termini for breaks), or you drag more routes in to the process so that drivers work part of their day on the 53 and part on something else. That in turn has potential route / type training issues.

In this case, it's probable that curtailing the route was the easiest answer. (this is all speculation on my part - I am not involved in any way with route 53)

In terms of managing 'short turns' once buses are on the road - yes, you could argue that they should all be avoided, but what if there is a bunch of buses one way and a gap the other? what if one of the drivers who is running late is going to run out of hours and not be able to do their return journey?

How it's done can certainly be improved - I had an experience a few weeks back where the bus I was on got to within sight of the bus in front (which was probably running even later than the bus I was on), then my bus was held back 'to regulate the service' (the bus in front slowly disappeared in to the distance) then it was turned short. Hmph.

I though the 53 curtailment was a temporary measure for the duration of the cycle highway roadworks?

 

[Mikey C]

Well if all cyclists 'went on strike' for a day and left the bikes at home and used their car or public transport instead I suspect London would grind to a halt.

In some circumstances such curtailments are necessary but they shouldn't be routinely done with no consideration for passengers as has become the case since I-bus was introduced.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I though the 53 curtailment was a temporary measure for the duration of the cycle highway roadworks?

If all the cyclists used public transport for the day, it would definitely be more crowded.
But then the buses would run faster as well, not being held up by cycles struggling up hills

 

[Busaholic]

I guess that may be easier once Oyster enters the back office world.

I've only been on one bus where the cancellation came through (X26 to Croydon in the middle of Sutton) and the driver overrode it and announced he was carrying on to the end of the route regardless of what Control wanted. It was a very packed bus.

On a route with a 30 minute frequency like the X26 short turning should be a last resort and commonsense would suggest the controller should check first with the driver as to numbers aboard. Of course, with a flat fare system no-one
knows how far any of those people are travelling!

P.S. I'm not attacking the principle of a flat fare system. I spent my (relatively short) time in LT Traffic Management Buses attempting to get someone/anyone to agree with me that having a dozen or more graduated fares on a single route at a time when OPO was being introduced was suicidal. In the end, someone apparently got the message.

 

[Tom B]

There are certainly some changes which could occur to make part route services easier.

1. They should always be advertised. I often see buses screened as a full-route bus, but which on ibus is shown as a part-route.

2. They should be co-ordinated so that passengers may transfer easily. I have been on buses which have turned short and upon arrival at the final stop, the bus behind (going full route) overtakes. A rule such as what Lothian operate i.e. that buses MUST NOT overtake at stops where the destination of the bus in front is different, would avoid this. Alternatively, if a bus is turned short the driver behind should get a notification to wait at the stop - failure to do so being a disciplinary.

3. The drivers should issue transfer tickets without hassle, and should treat passengers with a little more than contempt - after all 70 passengers have just been disrupted because the bus is late, whilst the driver simply turns around and goes back in the other direction.

 

[CatfordCat]

I though the 53 curtailment was a temporary measure for the duration of the cycle highway roadworks?

I believe that is the intention.

Although I think some routes are now on to about their 4th set of 'temporary' roadworks schedules and are still getting worse.

There are certainly some changes which could occur to make part route services easier.

1. They should always be advertised. I often see buses screened as a full-route bus, but which on ibus is shown as a part-route.

My personal experience is that i-bus more often shows the bus as running full route then it turns up only going part way.

There are certainly some changes which could occur to make part route services easier.

2. They should be co-ordinated so that passengers may transfer easily. I have been on buses which have turned short and upon arrival at the final stop, the bus behind (going full route) overtakes. A rule such as what Lothian operate i.e. that buses MUST NOT overtake at stops where the destination of the bus in front is different, would avoid this. Alternatively, if a bus is turned short the driver behind should get a notification to wait at the stop - failure to do so being a disciplinary.

That sounds reasonable - although if a driver of a number 123 sees another 123 at the stop ahead, how's s/he to know the one in front is turning short? (or for that matter whether it will have enough space for all the intending passengers at that stop)

It's darned annoying to have an almost empty bus sitting right behind you letting you take a full load, so in many cases, having it overtake is good - there are times it's not so good though...

In theory, control ought to be able to radio the driver of the second bus and say "the bus in front of you is being turned short - don't overtake and be ready for transferring passengers" - I'm guessing that the control rooms don't have the capacity to do this as well as run the service?

 

[Busaholic]

Clarity is needed from TfL regarding passengers 'caught short' as it were on their buses. What happens, for instance, when a driver for whatever reason (or none at all) refuses to issue a transfer ticket? Is one entitled to get on the next bus and explain the position to the driver and hope he/she will allow them on or is it a case of 'more than my job's worth' which I could quite understand? What if the route is run by NBFLs and the passenger just gets on the following bus through the centre or rear doors and doesn't touch in, then has the job of explaining to the inevitable Revenue Inspector why they didn't?

Then there is the matter of what, assuming you have your hands on the precious transfer ticket, this entitles you to i.e. is it just a 'free' ride on a following bus ON THE SAME ROUTE or can you use it on any bus route to your same original destination?

As an example, when I'm in London I quite often travel in the late p.m. peak on the 159 from Oxford Street to Streatham Hill. It doesn't matter to me whether the bus is travelling its full route to Streatham Station or is going into Brixton Garage, which is Streatham Hill, Telford Avenue in bus terminology. However, as of last month and a few days after my last visit, the 159 was taken away from Arriva, the operators of Brixton garage, and given to Abellio, who will I would imagine not be allowed to use Telford Avenue as a short-turning point. In any case, with the buses now running from Battersea garage, there will probably be many more short turns at Brixton Station from the north, as increasingly happens on the 3 also run by Abellio London. My point is this:- if a passenger gets on expecting Streatham/Hill and gets turfed off at Brixton Station why should they not be able to use the other five routes which would take them to the same destination along the same roads? Three of those routes commence at Brixton Station so the chances of getting on the bus are so much higher than waiting for another 159. I don't know whether this permissible in theory or not: TfL should clarify.

 

[plcd1]

That sounds reasonable - although if a driver of a number 123 sees another 123 at the stop ahead, how's s/he to know the one in front is turning short? (or for that matter whether it will have enough space for all the intending passengers at that stop)

It's darned annoying to have an almost empty bus sitting right behind you letting you take a full load, so in many cases, having it overtake is good - there are times it's not so good though...

In theory, control ought to be able to radio the driver of the second bus and say "the bus in front of you is being turned short - don't overtake and be ready for transferring passengers" - I'm guessing that the control rooms don't have the capacity to do this as well as run the service?

How ironic you mention the 123. Late last year I waited over 20 mins in the PM peak for a bus out of Ilford. The display kept saying "3 minutes" for about 15 minutes (the bus was parked at Hainault St stand). The crowds were so huge that I walked to the preceding stop as I felt I wouldn't be able to get on. Needless to say the bus ended up jammed full. We reached Charlie Browns roundabout (South Woodford) and the driver played the "this bus terminates here" announcement and switched the lights off. Another bus was about 2 mins behind so I think the control room had seen what had gone on, told the second bus to pick everyone up and the first bus disappeared off oos. I couldn't get on the second bus as there was no space for me and my bags. I therefore had to freeze by the roadside for another 15 minutes. It took 85 minutes to get home - it normally takes half that.

Even more galling was that I checked where the "defective" bus was. It was back in service so the controller threw us all off in the middle of nowhere so the first bus could get back "on time" despite the fact that they must have known how late the first bus was. It would have been far better to have just run it oos from Ilford and forced everyone on to the second bus. I am afraid that sort of tactic of throwing a full bus load of people off onto a bus that was pretty well loaded itself is just beyond the pale. Completely unacceptable just to get one bus back on time and especially where the route in question is the sole route - no alternatives for people to take another route from the point where we were thrown off.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clarity is needed from TfL regarding passengers 'caught short' as it were on their buses. What happens, for instance, when a driver for whatever reason (or none at all) refuses to issue a transfer ticket? Is one entitled to get on the next bus and explain the position to the driver and hope he/she will allow them on or is it a case of 'more than my job's worth' which I could quite understand? What if the route is run by NBFLs and the passenger just gets on the following bus through the centre or rear doors and doesn't touch in, then has the job of explaining to the inevitable Revenue Inspector why they didn't?

Then there is the matter of what, assuming you have your hands on the precious transfer ticket, this entitles you to i.e. is it just a 'free' ride on a following bus ON THE SAME ROUTE or can you use it on any bus route to your same original destination?

As an example, when I'm in London I quite often travel in the late p.m. peak on the 159 from Oxford Street to Streatham Hill. It doesn't matter to me whether the bus is travelling its full route to Streatham Station or is going into Brixton Garage, which is Streatham Hill, Telford Avenue in bus terminology. However, as of last month and a few days after my last visit, the 159 was taken away from Arriva, the operators of Brixton garage, and given to Abellio, who will I would imagine not be allowed to use Telford Avenue as a short-turning point. In any case, with the buses now running from Battersea garage, there will probably be many more short turns at Brixton Station from the north, as increasingly happens on the 3 also run by Abellio London. My point is this:- if a passenger gets on expecting Streatham/Hill and gets turfed off at Brixton Station why should they not be able to use the other five routes which would take them to the same destination along the same roads? Three of those routes commence at Brixton Station so the chances of getting on the bus are so much higher than waiting for another 159. I don't know whether this permissible in theory or not: TfL should clarify.

I'm not 100% certain about what follows but here goes in answering your question.

1. If you don't have a transfer ticket then a driver is within his rights not to let you on because otherwise everyone would use that "excuse" to get a free ride. However if the curtailed bus is just in front or behind and you go "I've just been turfed off that bus there" then you might get a sympathetic hearing. Not ideal but then no one should be refusing to issue a transfer ticket if the bus has been curtailed part way through the originally advertised journey.

2. On a NB4L then you could explain your situation and the inspector has the option to check via radio / phone with Centrecomm or the operator to see if buses had been curtailed. Otherwise I suspect you may be in line for a penalty fare. If you've used an Oyster Card you at least have the ability for the inspector to part verify your statement because they can see what route you were when your trip was curtailed. No such luck with a contactless payment card.

3. I don't believe there is any restriction as to what route you catch next with a transfer ticket. Again it is easy to explain to the driver that you were on a 159 and kicked off at Oval and a 133 will get you to Brixton Prison bus stop (for example). Ditto about getting a 133, 333, 109, 59, 250 etc to head towards Streatham from Brixton rather than waiting for a 159. Obviously in a number of cases people have no choice and will get on the next bus on the same route they were kicked off of. What I don't believe you can do is use a transfer ticket as a "multi ride" ticket to jump on bus after bus just to do your chores and then go home. It is about completing your original journey on two buses.

As I say I'm not 100% confident in the above but I've never found really detailed info about how transfer tickets work.

London Reconnections did an article about bus transfer tickets when they changed to being individually issued rather than a list.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/tfl-make-changes-to-bus-transfer-tickets/

Partial quote

One of the London Bus Network’s least known features (second, perhaps, only to the fact that there is actually no such a thing as a “compulsory stop”) has long been the existence of the “transfer ticket.”

HTH