I’ve noticed some discrepancies between the block numbers in the Go South Coast timetable data (latest release 20240929) and the actual workings “on the ground”.
For example the block numbers indicate this sequence of vehicle workings on the 3 and 16 (Bluestar), duty E54 (picking this one out as it moves from the 3 to the 16 and back again):
What actually happens (from on-the-ground observations and looking at bustimes.org data over a period of weeks) is that it’s actually the 0925 Eastleigh-Southampton which swaps onto the 16, forming the 1055, 1155 and 1255, before going back onto the 3 for the 1355.
Similarly the 0720 on the 8 from Southampton-Hythe and return journey are shown to then form the 1025 on the 4. In reality the vehicle lays over for an hour by the West Quay stop and forms the 1035 on the 9.
A third example is that on Tuesdays-Fridays a double-decker appears to move onto the 20 from the 0922 departure onwards, having done morning school/college journeys, while this swap doesn’t happen on Mondays - again not indicated in the data.
Block numbers were not mandatory in the original BODS TXC profile, so are not required to be a compliant TXC. Some smaller operators don’t use block numbers as their vehicle working change day by day so that would be impossible to define a long time in advance.
If the field is not mandatory then there is no reason why an operator should have to submit a revised TXC if all they have changed in the bus workings as the timetable data will be correct.
Go South Coast are very proactively managing block workings, to the point that these are changing more frequently than the timetable - in a 52 week year we may make as many as 48 changes to block workings (although an individual depot or rota’s blocking may change less frequently).
Additionally, just because a block working is scheduled doesn’t mean that is how the service is going to operate - put simply conditions on the road may necessitate stepping back, switching workings, or on-the-fly adjustment. Where these occur, it may take a week or so for feedback to return to the planning team and result in changes to underlying data.
In the case of your first example, it’s likely that the diversion arising from “unexpected roadworks” at the junction of Maddoxford & Winchester Roads will have caused delays and a rejig, hence the non-compliance with the published workings - a good example of plans meeting reality.
In your second example, I can confirm that the underlying data has changed - the pattern of journeys you describe reflects changes to the running board. I don’t know, but I suspect this is just a discovered improvement in the duty arrangement to step the 10:25 departure back to the previous journey pair on the 8.
Likewise the last change is indeed a change of board - the Monday board varies from the Tue-Fri board.
The reasons for changes can be myriad - changes in planned capacity to meet unexpected demand, changes in runs to allow for certain kinds of engineering, accommodations for roadworks and diversions (planned or otherwise, long term or short term). To call the block numbers habitually incorrect is to describe road conditions as habitually changeable - which, of course, they are! So in a sense, the answer to your question is yes; but there is often some rationale.
Hi Graham, many thanks. Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been meaning to reply for a while.
Thanks for sharing information about what actually goes on. I can see at the moment, for example, that the whole working pattern of the 10/13/14 has changed due to the roadworks on Thornhill Park Road.