Headway management outside London

[py_megapixel]

Where in the UK outside London has high frequency bus routes operated on the basis of regulating the gap between buses rather than instructing drivers to run to a fixed timetable?

Are there any examples of this being coordinated between multiple depots / operators?

Anecdotally it seems quite uncommon. In Sheffield, for example, when one bus catches up another, they will generally overtake each other repeatedly, often all the way to the end of the route.

 

[duncombec]

I think I'm correct in saying that outside of London, anything with a service interval of more than 10 minutes needs a fixed timetable registered with the Traffic Commissioner - and only those services operating every 9 minutes or less can do so with a frequency block.

However, even then, a number of operators seem to prefer a fixed timetable, e.g. a 6 or 8 minute service, presumably for efficient diagramming and staff scheduling in these strained times.

Running on headway management can be as problematic to passengers as two buses running together, whether "officially" or "unofficially". I remember crawling along the A6 between Stockport and Manchester one Sunday morning, because even with the lower frequency we'd caught the bus in front. Stopping for a minute or two at a time at what felt like every other bus stop, despite not having anyone to pick up, was torturous - "leapfrogging" to balance the passenger load would have been a better experience for almost all concerned.

In contrast, we used to have a bus every 10 minutes. Despite some claims that less than ten minutes is regarded by "most" as "turn up and go", it was notable how many people would arrive at the bus stop a minute or two before the bus, knowing that it ran at, for example, "on the nine" (xx09, xx19, etc.).

 

[py_megapixel]

Running on headway management can be as problematic to passengers as two buses running together, whether "officially" or "unofficially". I remember crawling along the A6 between Stockport and Manchester one Sunday morning, because even with the lower frequency we'd caught the bus in front. Stopping for a minute or two at a time at what felt like every other bus stop, despite not having anyone to pick up, was torturous - "leapfrogging" to balance the passenger load would have been a better experience for almost all concerned.

It's interesting you say that as I didn't think the 192 was headway managed. Bunching has always been quite common on there and a full timetable is certainly published online (though I believe the stop displays have an abbreviated version)

 

[Hophead]

With regulation by headway, isn't it the case that the service has to be actively managed to minimise bunching? This is a cost that most operators will not wish to carry. If control aren't watching over and regulating the service, then it doesn't really sound like headway management.

 

[Roger1973]

I think I'm correct in saying that outside of London, anything with a service interval of more than 10 minutes needs a fixed timetable registered with the Traffic Commissioner - and only those services operating every 9 minutes or less can do so with a frequency block.

Yes, that's my understanding.

Although I believe (at one time, not sure if it's still within the rules) the Traffic Commissioners want to know how many buses are expected to be committed to the route - some operators were working outside the spirit of the rules by varying number of buses depending on likely traffic / vehicle or driver availability / level of competition to run anything between 5 and 10 minute headway on different days.

However, even then, a number of operators seem to prefer a fixed timetable, e.g. a 6 or 8 minute service, presumably for efficient diagramming and staff scheduling in these strained times.

With regulation by headway, isn't it the case that the service has to be actively managed to minimise bunching? This is a cost that most operators will not wish to carry. If control aren't watching over and regulating the service, then it doesn't really sound like headway management.

Even on a route that's in public / roadside timetables as 'headway', buses and drivers will be scheduled and in systems on a set timetable. Even pre-covid when some TFL routes were on 2-3 minute headway, each bus still had a time card / duty card with specific journeys on it, although TFL measured headway / excess wait time rather than whether each specific bus was 'on time' (if every single bus was X minutes late, but an even headway was running, passengers wouldn't notice.)

Regulating it is a mix of technology and controller/s.

On that sort of route, the time card is more a basis for negotiation than 'you must run at these times'. Controllers might ask drivers to leave a bit early or late (controllers would be aware which journeys involved a driver change-over, so would try to ensure that journey ran at around correct time, especially if the change-over was part way through a journey) and drivers would not try to observe times at intermediate timing points, just follow the gadget in the cab that showed how they were doing on maintaining even headway.

The thing in the cab would show green / amber / red (from memory) to show how the driver how they were doing in maintaining headway, but controllers would still often need to make a radio call asking bus number AB 123 to slow down a bit / wait a bit. (Some drivers are reasonably skilled at doing this without making it too obvious, and not needing to do the 'this bus has been asked to wait here to even out the service' thing, which can annoy passengers. Especially if it's done one or two stops before a major interchange...)

Although it can end up with everyone running at the speed of the slowest bus / driver on the road.

Running on headway management can be as problematic to passengers as two buses running together, whether "officially" or "unofficially". I remember crawling along the A6 between Stockport and Manchester one Sunday morning, because even with the lower frequency we'd caught the bus in front. Stopping for a minute or two at a time at what felt like every other bus stop, despite not having anyone to pick up, was torturous - "leapfrogging" to balance the passenger load would have been a better experience for almost all concerned.

As above. Although doing this can generate a longer gap behind the two buses doing this - it's fine for passengers on those two buses, but arguably less so for passengers waiting behind them.

In contrast, we used to have a bus every 10 minutes. Despite some claims that less than ten minutes is regarded by "most" as "turn up and go", it was notable how many people would arrive at the bus stop a minute or two before the bus, knowing that it ran at, for example, "on the nine" (xx09, xx19, etc.).

Yes - the theory about what headway is ideal 'turn up and go' varies depending on who you ask. Although an increasing proportion of passengers will not look at / remember a timetable, they will just look at a website or app that shows a real time prediction that the next bus will be at their stop in X minutes.

 

[WibbleWobble]

It's interesting you say that as I didn't think the 192 was headway managed. Bunching has always been quite common on there and a full timetable is certainly published online (though I believe the stop displays have an abbreviated version)

The 192 was headway managed to a degree under Stagecoach, as an inspector would be stationed at Piccadilly and could be deployed to Mersey Square when required. Other services would be similarly controlled at other major termini, with buses running earlier on high frequency services to close the gap (so instead of a 20 minute gap followed by a 10 minute gap, it would be evened to two 15 minute gaps).

 

[Tom B]

First Mainline in Doncaster did very little service regulation in terms of part-routes, however many of the routes went into housing estates or pit villages and if two buses were bunching, one would usually run dead back into town via the main road, picking up the route further along, or would skip the bus station and town centre on the way out and then pick up the route once out of the town centre.

LRT did practice service regulation, although not as heavily as in London, though they did have a larger number of scheduled part routes as part of peak time or extremes of the day. They did take unscheduled part-routes seriously, and would always coordinate so if your bus terminated, they would have already radio'd the previous or next one to meet at a suitable stop and transfer passengers. This is in direct contrast to the London procedure of pulling over to dump passengers and the full route bus following, overtaking and leaving everyone stranded, the first driver simply shrugging his shoulders!

 

[greenline712]

This is one of those questions for which there is no "correct" answer. As @Roger1973 has mentioned, there has to be a schedule to start with, and ideally the schedule will be robust enough to deal with occasional "hiccups" without interference from controllers. In London, one by-product of iBus was that the driver is advised if they're getting too close to the bus in front, and they can (in theory) regulate themselves. And yes . . . if a service is advertised as "every 7-8 minutes", and the entire schedule is running 10 minutes early or late, Joe Passenger won't see any difference.

The problems arise when a route has a "live" relief point . . . if all buses are running early, then at some point a bus will not have a relief driver available; and then the whole pack of cards, finely balanced, will topple. And what happens then? Chaos whilst the controllers sort it out!! Better to run to the schedule, with maybe a couple of minutes difference . . . no more.

The other point to note is that "low frequency" routes need much more careful management, hour by hour. If a route runs every 20 minutes, and one bus is running 10 minutes late, the last thing to do is run subsequent buses late to "even out the gap". Passengers on these routes (which, outside the conurbations, represent by far the majority of routes) will go out for the bus at "23 minutes past). If one bus is late, it's not good, but if subsequent buses also run late to even out a headway, then even more passengers get disrupted. It's usually better to leave the service alone, and hope that the schedule is robust enough to allow the next trip to depart on time.

Sometimes, a curtailment is the only solution; or perhaps running a bus empty halfway along the route to regain its "slot" . . . it's never ideal, but in the overall picture, perhaps the "least worst" option.

 

[Deerfold]

This is one of those questions for which there is no "correct" answer. As @Roger1973 has mentioned, there has to be a schedule to start with, and ideally the schedule will be robust enough to deal with occasional "hiccups" without interference from controllers. In London, one by-product of iBus was that the driver is advised if they're getting too close to the bus in front, and they can (in theory) regulate themselves. And yes . . . if a service is advertised as "every 7-8 minutes", and the entire schedule is running 10 minutes early or late, Joe Passenger won't see any difference.

The problems arise when a route has a "live" relief point . . . if all buses are running early, then at some point a bus will not have a relief driver available; and then the whole pack of cards, finely balanced, will topple. And what happens then? Chaos whilst the controllers sort it out!! Better to run to the schedule, with maybe a couple of minutes difference . . . no more.

The other point to note is that "low frequency" routes need much more careful management, hour by hour. If a route runs every 20 minutes, and one bus is running 10 minutes late, the last thing to do is run subsequent buses late to "even out the gap". Passengers on these routes (which, outside the conurbations, represent by far the majority of routes) will go out for the bus at "23 minutes past). If one bus is late, it's not good, but if subsequent buses also run late to even out a headway, then even more passengers get disrupted. It's usually better to leave the service alone, and hope that the schedule is robust enough to allow the next trip to depart on time.

Sometimes, a curtailment is the only solution; or perhaps running a bus empty halfway along the route to regain its "slot" . . . it's never ideal, but in the overall picture, perhaps the "least worst" option.

London buses are only regulated by headway when they run at least 5 times an hour for most of the day.