please empty your brain below

Well done - it'll prove to be a useful record as the 'cost' of the fares freeze becomes increasingly apparent (and the lack of maps!).
The 6, 24 and 134 also have their Sun/Mon-Thurs/Fri night frequency cut - when the tube doesn't run, so the 6, 24 and 134 drop from x15 to x30.

The N29 and N207 did get a better weekend frequency at the outer ends, the N29 went up from x10 to x8 between Wood Green and Enfield, and the N207 from x30 to x20 between Hayes and Uxbridge.

The TfL page is usually updated every 2 weeks, so the next update is due 6th/7th October.
This is typical, some of the busiest single deck routes I've seen are being cut, but some of my locals continue to run around carrying fresh air with DDs. They can easily cut the E2, E9 and 297 off-peak without causing much harm, and this is just in Ealing!

The E6 and 276 are always rammed solid whenever I see them, I have to use the former fairly regularly and nearly always have to stand.

After checking my spreadsheet, I can confirm that the 276 is in the top 3 most overcrowded single deck routes, using 125% of its capacity! Cutting that is absolutely ridiculous!

In twenty years time the 25 will probably be running every hour with vans.....
Sorry to be a pedant here but shouldn't route 205 better be described as 1/2 bus an hour?!

dg writes: You might think so.

Generally for me, cuts from a 20 min or better frequency to a 30 min or worse frequency represents the boundary between a turn up and go service to one where you need to know the timetable.
Weren't these cuts presented as responding to changes in demand? So how does that work, if they are cutting busy routes too?
These cuts are not just consequences of the Fares Freeze. They are (arguably) consequences of the combination of Fares-Freeze and refusal/inability to find sufficient alternative money sources.

But, whatever the cause, it is good to have them summarized and documented.
Making buses less frequent has two different effects:

1) It makes the average wait longer. This is particularly so with less frequent services - a change from 2 to 1 bus per hour, for instance.

2) It can make the buses more crowded, oblige more passengers to stand or be unable to board. The severity of this effect depends on the loading - for a lightly-loaded route it can be negligable.

3) As a side-effect of (2) it can increase journey times, as more time is spent at bus stops.
Last time this was mentioned, there were also some services going up. And indeed in Ealing, there has been over the last two years an increase in the E2, E8 and 65 frequency, and at some point the 112 is being extended along part of the 65's route to further increase capacity. They reduced the frequency of the E3 because... it was empty.

So I'm not sure how much I agree with this doom and gloom. Some of it is the effect of Night Tube, some of it is the effect of Uber and the increase in traffic making journeys less reliable/palatable. I'm not convinced it's all the effect of the fares freeze.
I live near the 276, and I think reducing the weekday frequency is such a bad idea that I have created a petition. tf-save-route-276-from-becoming-almost-unusable
It's true, one service is having its frequency increased this month (the H14, in Harrow, up by 1 bus an hour). It's not all one-way traffic.

But 28 services are being cut.
The new timetables for the 43 and 134 are now up on Robert Munsters site.

As both now run every 30 minutes, you might think there would be some attempt to have a bus every 15 minutes on the common section between Friern Barnet and Archway. But no.

Northbound I've chosen the Highgate stop, as different stops are used at Archway.

Mon-Thurs the 43 goes through at:-
01:06, 01:29, 01:59, 02:27, 02:57, 03:27, 03:57, 04:29, 04:59
The 134 goes through at: -
01:00, 01:28, 01:58, 02:28, 02:52, then xx:22 + xx:52

Weekends the 43 goes through at:-
01:03, 01:15, 01:24, 01:53, 02:19, 02:49, 03:19, 03:42, 04:09, 04:39
The 134 goes through at: -
01:02, 01:32, 02:01, 02:31, 02:53 then xx:23 + xx:53

So at weekends when you might have got off the night tube, the gaps vary from 1 minute @ 01:02 and 01:03 to 26 minutes @ 02:53 and 03:19.
Apparently the new contract for the 225 has been commenced early, with a consequent reduction from x15 to x20 minutes from last weekend.
@ LBOTG - "your spreadsheet"? Not one someone else created and freely distributed which has exactly the same calculated value for the 276?

@ DG - you can throw in the 321, Night 214, night 14, N38, N97, 483, U5, 39, 42, 47, 72, 89, 93, 163, 209/609, 211, 319 and 430. The 221 is also due to be restructured with no short runs between T'pike Lane and North Finchley. Most of the above is scheduled for October. The 173 and 368 are due to get "widened headways" - another euphemism for cuts.

It's getting to be ridiculous. At this pace of change every route in the network will have been "adjusted" within 9 months or so.
@LBOTG where can I find this spreadsheet of over / under capacity?

I'd love to see the figures for the 72 with its under used extra journeys designed to double the frequency but make no sense as they terminate the wrong side of the troubled Hammersmith Bridge.
@ AP - the spreadsheet is my creation. I have compiled nearly 20 years worth of tfl patronage data (released to the London Assembly and then added to every year since) and added a great deal of other information per route including frequency, route history, operator, commentary and capacity calculations.

I would just say that the capacity calculations are, by their very nature, "rough and ready" because they are annualised data rolled up from buses per hour information. The numbers cannot and do not give a view about loadings at any point on a route or in a time band on a route. TfL do not release this level of data - presumably because the data volumes would be enormous and still imprecise as TfL do not record where people alight from buses.

I am not going to put my E Mail address here because of the risk of spam. If LBOTG wants to somehow send you a copy that is fine by me but I do baulk at not being given the credit for a great deal of work over many years or for being willing to freely share this work. A little due recognition is a small thing to ask.
@ AP - the numbers will not give you the answer to your route 72 question. It's an annual demand vs annual route level capacity comparison. The data does not allow for more sophisticated spatial / temporal analysis.
*gets popcorn*
@PC Thanks for that. I always assumed bus loading info was difficult to obtain.
Though after my original post I remembered that some commuter trains now have a bit of kit on them that works out how heavy each coach is and therefore can provide info to passengers saying for example if you move to coach 7 there are seats.
That kit could no doubt be put on buses and then TfL would know which parts of its routes are the most heavily loaded.
You can deduce quite a lot about bus patronage, but by no means everything, from the database TfL provide here:

The N29, which has seen the biggest cut in frequency, has lost 11% of its passengers since 2015/16.

Around 70 bus routes have lost over 10% of their passengers in the last year, most of them nightbuses, but also including routes 11, 25, 47 and 210. The RV1 lost 45% of its passengers.

The W7 is London's busiest bus, in terms of passengers carried and miles travelled.
Eh? What's that about route W7? It doesn't seem to have the highest figures in the TfL spreadsheet you kindly mention. I must have missed something - is it something divided by something else which is highest?

dg writes: Yes.
The raw data on bus usage can only tell you where people got on, and therefore not which is the busiest section, because that also depends where people get off. You can get an approximation of loadings over the day if you assume travel patterns are symmetrical - that is to say the number of people getting off a westbound bus at stop X over the course of a day is probably close to the number getting on eastbound buses at the corresponding stop across the road.
The 47 and RV1 have been screwed up by the diversion at London Bridge, and the closure of Tower Bridge at the turn of this year - the 47 was cut back to Southwark (?) at this point in the daytime because of the congestion on London Bridge.

The 47 never had a chance to recover from all the chaos in Lewisham whilst they put in the new road layout.

The 210 was also had the twin hit of the removal of the Archway one way system, plus the closure of Holloway Road due to bridge replacement.
@PC, I've used the data from that spreadsheet to create my own which ranks every route from the lowest capacity utilisation score to the highest. I do apologise for not making it clearer that the data isn't my own, I simply stated it because my new version is where I took the figure from!

If you would like a link to my version then I'm more than happy to share it
I completely understand that if must've taken you hours and hours of hard work to complete and I'm extremely impressed with your patience and determination, so please forgive me if you feel I've undermined/neglected your creation in any way way, as my rather arrogant-sounding comment was definitely unintentional

TridentScan | Privacy Policy