- Bus 117 isn’t found on the TFL website when searching for a route number
- Bus 63 & N63 need to be placed on “Abellio London Ltd” and Shouldn’t be under “London Central Bus Company Ltd”
- Bus 414 needs to be placed on " Tower Transit Operations Ltd" and Shouldn’t be under " Abellio London Ltd"
- Bus 180 / two searches found for 180 which is " South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd" [Correct] & " London Central Bus Company Ltd" [Incorrect]
- Bus 718 needs to be removed from “London General Transport Services Ltd” as it has withdrawn from service.
Good evening @jamesevans
I know this isn’t part of Who runs you bus but i saw this column blank for 951-1000, missing 969.
Many Thanks
Anas
-
Bus 484 needs to be placed on " London Central Bus Company Ltd" and shouldn’t be under " Abellio London Ltd"
-
Bus B14 needs to be placed on " South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd" and shouldn’t be under " London Central Bus Company Ltd"
-
Bus 212 / two searches found for 212 which is " London General Transport Services Ltd" [Correct] & " Tower Transit Operations Ltd" [Incorrect]
-
Bus 484 should be placed on “London Central Bus Company Ltd” and shouldn’t be under " Abellio London Ltd"
-
Bus B14 should be placed on “South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd” and shouldn’t stay under " London Central Bus Company Ltd"
-
Bus 212 / two searches found for 212, “London General Transport Services Ltd” [Correct] & “Tower Transit Operations Ltd” [Incorrect]
-
Bus 413 isn’t found when searching a route number and should be under “London General Transport Services Ltd”
-
Bus 453 / two searches found for 453, “London General Transport Services Ltd” [Correct] & “London Central Bus Company Ltd” [Incorrect]
-
Bus 474 isn’t found when searching a route number and should be under “East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd”
-
Bus 497 isn’t found when searching a route number and should be under “East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd”
-
Bus 235 should be placed on " London Transit, London United" and shall no longer stay under “Metroline Travel Ltd”
-
W15 should be placed on London General Transport Services Ltd and shall no longer stay under Tower Transit Operations Ltd
-
549 should be placed on Sullivan Bus & Coach Ltd and shall no longer stay under East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd
-
B14 must be placed on South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd
-
413 isn’t found when searching for a bus
-
474 isn’t found when searching for a bus
-
497 isn’t found when searching for a bus
-
453 / Two searches found which London Central Bus Company Ltd is correct and not London General Transport Services Ltd
1 Like
-
549 isn’t found when searching for a bus and must be under Sullivan Bus & Coach Ltd
-
B14 must be placed on South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd and not London Central Bus Company Ltd
All routes operated by GoAhead London Metrobus are linked to the NOC code for Metrobus Crawley and so for sites such as bustimes.org, Metrobus London and Metrobus Crawley are completely mixed up and for all other journey planners (including Traveline) say that the contact details are Metrobus Crawley and don’t link to TFL for contact info.
Have the TFL team got any feedback on this?
Also, could we not just have all the Go-Ahead London routes attributed to them (NOC = GAHL) rather than London Central, London General, Blue Triangle, Docklands Buses & Metrobus?
Looking at the Traveline NOC data for Go-Ahead’s “London” operators shows the following:
| NOCCODE | OperatorPublicName | Licence | AuditComment |
|---|---|---|---|
| BTRI | Blue Triangle | PK0003356* | Ceased. BE moved to GAHL |
| DLBU | Docklands Buses | PK0003348* | |
| GAHL | Go Ahead London | PK0001816 | Add local codes from BTRI, LGEN, LONC |
| LGEN | London General | PK0001816 | Consolidated with GAHL |
| LONC | London Central | PK0002087* | Consolidated into GAHL |
| MBGA | Metrobus (operated by Go Ahead London) | PK0001816 | |
| METR | Metrobus | PK0002125* |
The licenses marked with a * have been surrendered according to gov.uk and all except London General / Go-Ahead London are non-trading companies according to Companies House…
Simon
Hi, unsure if this is linked to this, but in the last TxC update, 4 standard bus routes are marked as replacement services: 63, N63, 341 and W4. 63 was already marked as such last week. Could you take a look please? Pretty sure these are definitely not replacement buses. See extract of TxC below:
<Operators>
<Operator id="OId_RRS">
<OperatorCode>RRS</OperatorCode>
<OperatorShortName>Replacement Service</OperatorShortName>
<OperatorNameOnLicence>Replacement Service</OperatorNameOnLicence>
<TradingName>Replacement Service</TradingName>
</Operator>
</Operators>
Cheers
1 Like
Hi,
Can confirm that in this week’s TxC release, this problem is gone.
Thank you for resolving!
Best,
Nick
1 Like
@petejackson745
If you look at London Bus Route Details you will find that a few routes have allocations from two or more depots, or the night service is run from a different depot. It’s not a one-to-many relationship.
However, the main lesson from that page is that people have been compiling this sort of information for donkeys’ years, probably pre-dating open data, and unless the TfL file (which is pretty peripheral to providing bus information to the public) is updated immediately ,a change happens, those sources are more likely to be up-to-date. Not necessarily easy to scrape, admittedly.
On changing the code - No thank you! It’s the same set of operations and keeping the same code makes clear that continuity. Also, a code is a code is a code and just needs to be unique, at least at a point in time. But maybe I am missing your point?
1 Like
@petejackson745 - Change the name, of course, but not the code.
Yes, two depots is unusual but to have value an application surely has to be able to cope with the special cases.
Operators may well release the depot info in open data, though they presumably also have split operations. TfL is of course not an operator as such. In theory TfL need have no more interest in which depot an operator chooses to run a route from than (say) a county council does for a tendered service. In practice the working timetables do show the garage of operation, maybe because they were always shown in LT days as much as anything else. You do get some odd looking data where two depots are involved (such as a bus needing to break the national speed limit to get from base to first live stop!).
@petejackson745
If the split at First Somerset doesn’t cause problems, presumably their open data indicate which trip (or block of trips) is operated by which depot, rather than which route. That’s a much bigger ball game, with several hundred trips per day on some TfL routes.
I fully agree that TfL should be encouraged to make as much as possible available as open data, for all the reasons you give. What I am wondering is whether TfL actually needs the data in the form you want for operational purposes. If it doesn’t then it is unlikely to be pulled together into a form TfL can use (because it doesn’t need to do so), in which case it would only be doing what might be a substantial task expressly to provide it as open data. Would the cost to TfL be outweighed by the benefit to app developers and users? Which probably goes back to whether it would need to be at route level (easy but imperfect) or trip level.
I’m not trying to be negative but realistically open data should flow from what the organisation and their suppliers/customers actually need and should be embedded in the business processes. If they don’t, you inevitably end up with datasets that are fine when created but get updated rarely, if ever. Which is what you are reporting on the “who runs your bus” data, come to think of it!
On the bright side, I believe that the national BODS setup has space for operators to provide the running number (and depot? not sure about that) so maybe, just maybe, they will eventually appear into input from TfL/operator into that system (I’m no expert on BODS, let alone how TFL relates to it). My understanding is that not all operators outside London provide this, because for the smallest operators with a handful of vehicles the concept of a running number is pretty much irrelevant.