Timetable Changes 2024,

[Linto63]

Possibly, but would not make any sense having U-Go operate a route that is wholly outside of its operating area. Unless routes 920 and 960 are reunited, can't see any benefit.

[swtt]

Possibly, but would not make any sense having U-Go operate a route that is wholly outside of its operating area. Unless routes 920 and 960 are reunited, can't see any benefit.

I am quietly hoping that will be when M90/M91 are renumbered back into the usual range of route numbers, instead of being the two odd-bod "M" routes harking back to 2010, especially if the "M" routes were considered confusing for passengers when Metro Northwest (soon to be "M1") opened and a whole stack of "M" routes were renumbered!

[Qantas94Heavy]

I noticed that some of the route changes mentioned a ‘staff shortage’ as one of the reasons for route changes. I wonder if when there are enough drivers for R14, will there be adjustments again?

Will be curious to see whether being explicitly noted as due to a 'driver shortage' makes a difference. For reference here are the affected routes:

273

• The weekday 06:50 trip from Killarney Heights will be withdrawn due to the ongoing driver shortage and availability of alternative options.
• Updated running times to better reflect operating conditions.

560

• One weekday PM peak trip removed due to the ongoing driver shortage.
• Sunday and Public Holiday frequency will be improved to every 60 mins.
• Updated running times to better reflect operating conditions.

572

• The first two weekday trips will operate as route 571 instead.
• Weekday peak frequency will be reduced to every 30 mins (currently every 20 mins) due to the ongoing driver shortage.
• Updated running times to better reflect operating conditions.

575

• Weekday peak frequency will be reduced to every 30 mins (currently every 20 mins) due to the ongoing driver shortage.
• An earlier weekday service will operate from Hornsby Station to provide better access to Hornsby Hospital.
• Updated running times to better reflect operating conditions.

[BAMBAM]

I noticed that some of the route changes mentioned a ‘staff shortage’ as one of the reasons for route changes. I wonder if when there are enough drivers for R14, will there be adjustments again?

Will be curious to see whether being explicitly noted as due to a 'driver shortage' makes a difference. For reference here are the affected routes:

273

• The weekday 06:50 trip from Killarney Heights will be withdrawn due to the ongoing driver shortage and availability of alternative options.
• Updated running times to better reflect operating conditions.

560

• One weekday PM peak trip removed due to the ongoing driver shortage.
• Sunday and Public Holiday frequency will be improved to every 60 mins.
• Updated running times to better reflect operating conditions.

572

• The first two weekday trips will operate as route 571 instead.
• Weekday peak frequency will be reduced to every 30 mins (currently every 20 mins) due to the ongoing driver shortage.
• Updated running times to better reflect operating conditions.

575

• Weekday peak frequency will be reduced to every 30 mins (currently every 20 mins) due to the ongoing driver shortage.
• An earlier weekday service will operate from Hornsby Station to provide better access to Hornsby Hospital.
• Updated running times to better reflect operating conditions.

Don't remember Transdev having staff shortages where changes was made like this, let's hope this isn't another U-GO situation

[Noel]

Changes to the TJHB network start on 29 April. The biggest change is routes 392x and 394x will operate as loop services and now service Elizabeth St in both directions.

In the AM peak, 394x services will operate into the city as current before serving stops along Elizabeth St and then operating back out as far as Maroubra Jn. The opposite happens in the afternoon.
In the AM peak, 392x services will operate into the city as current before serving stops along Elizabeth St and then operating back out as far as Eastgardens. The opposite happens in the afternoon.

All of the remaining express services stay on Castlereagh St.

And after a year in power, it appears like they weren't able to find enough money to return the 400 like the promised every second of the election campaign .

[boronia]

Hopefully the "extensions" to the 394x would include stops at UNSW to help relieve overcrowding on the 396 services?

[MiCCROwavE_OVEN]

And after a year in power, it appears like they weren't able to find enough money to return the 400 like the promised every second of the election campaign .

Restoring the 400 would mean it runs mostly parallel to the current 350 - I'd imagine either an extension of the 350 and/or renumbering it to the 400 would be the most likely course of action (that is, if they bother to do anything).

A return of the 400 in its pre-2018 format would be all but impossible with privatisation - half of the route would be in Region 9 and the other half in Region 6. This may not have been a problem previously as both regions used to be with State Transit - although I recall route sharing on the 400 existed for a period of time between STA and TSA, there would probably have been a reason as to why it was stopped.

[Noel]

Hopefully the "extensions" to the 394x would include stops at UNSW to help relieve overcrowding on the 396 services?

No stops changes are proposed.

Restoring the 400 would mean it runs mostly parallel to the current 350 - I'd imagine either an extension of the 350 and/or renumbering it to the 400 would be the most likely course of action (that is, if they bother to do anything).

You and I know this but every hapless politician - including the one in Coogee - promised and campaigned no end that the 400 would return.

Just like how they've committed funding for the 445 to be extended down to Balmain East Wharf again but it would be hard pressed fitting anymore buses in there with the 442 at it's current frequency.

These changes seem to be cost neutral - the buses would be heading in to start the outbound trips anyway so they're just operating in service.

[Merc1107]

A return of the 400 in its pre-2018 format would be all but impossible with privatisation - half of the route would be in Region 9 and the other half in Region 6. This may not have been a problem previously as both regions used to be with State Transit - although I recall route sharing on the 400 existed for a period of time between STA and TSA, there would probably have been a reason as to why it was stopped.

That it is allegedly impossible for neighbouring regions held by separate contractors to operate a route crossing both areas sounds like a cop out to me. Back over in Perth, there are a handful of frequent routes serviced by more than one of the incumbent contractors, one of those, the CircleRoute, has been operated by all three contractors (all of them doing a mix of a complete 3hr service or various short-workings) for most of its nearly 25 year history.

Perhaps in the case of a city as big as Sydney, it is simply not practical to run lengthy services without running into issues with maintaining punctuality, or matching service levels to demand?

[pgt]

That it is allegedly impossible for neighbouring regions held by separate contractors to operate a route crossing both areas sounds like a cop out to me.

Somebody might want to figure out how Transit Systems manages to run so many of the region 6 routes into the other areas.
Ones that come to mind - there's more - include the 389, 410, 530 and the 320 which barely even runs into region 6 if I'm not mistaken, depending on where one draws the boundary (wherever that is to begin with).

Arguably there's plenty of other routes that operate into other regions, though I suspect the former route 400 would have been unique as essentially buses from more than one 'region' operated the service previously [if you think about which depots had buses on that route].
Without compromising operations on any other route, would either Transit Systems or Transdev John Holland have enough buses and drivers to operate a reinstated route 400 as such, since no route would be shared across regions/operators?
Or is there some framework for sharing operation of a route in the current contract operations (unlikely)?

[Michael Bamborough]

Changes to the TJHB network start on 29 April. The biggest change is routes 392x and 394x will operate as loop services and now service Elizabeth St in both directions.

In the AM peak, 394x services will operate into the city as current before serving stops along Elizabeth St and then operating back out as far as Maroubra Jn. The opposite happens in the afternoon.
In the AM peak, 392x services will operate into the city as current before serving stops along Elizabeth St and then operating back out as far as Eastgardens. The opposite happens in the afternoon.

All of the remaining express services stay on Castlereagh St.

Wait when and where was this reported? Eltherway would be interesting to finally have some express services here operate in Both directions in peak hours.

[Stu]

Somebody might want to figure out how Transit Systems manages to run so many of the region 6 routes into the other areas.
Ones that come to mind - there's more - include the 389, 410, 530 and the 320 which barely even runs into region 6 if I'm not mistaken, depending on where one draws the boundary (wherever that is to begin with).

Arguably there's plenty of other routes that operate into other regions, though I suspect the former route 400 would have been unique as essentially buses from more than one 'region' operated the service previously [if you think about which depots had buses on that route].
Without compromising operations on any other route, would either Transit Systems or Transdev John Holland have enough buses and drivers to operate a reinstated route 400 as such, since no route would be shared across regions/operators?
Or is there some framework for sharing operation of a route in the current contract operations (unlikely)?

Routes 389, 410, 530 & 320 were inherited from STA which had multiple region and multiple depots at its disposal. I've provided a small history below that mainly focuses on route allocation across and respective regions and depots that relates to the before (STA) and after (Transit Systems).

389.
- Formerly a Region 9 route. North Bondi - Circular Quay.

- 4/10/2015 - Sydney CBD bus network changes, This route route was merged with Region 6 route 443 to support the upcoming CSELR
construction on George St and the removal of many bus services from Circular Quay.

- The merged version of 389 remained as a designated Region 9 route and was shared with Region 6 until May 2018. The last few short working trips
are centred around the former R6 route 443 which creates an operational efficiency for operating the route 389 out of R6.

- What would people think if this service was split up into route 389 North Bondi - Circular Quay and route 443 The Star - Town Hall loop service? I
wonder how many passengers travel between Pyrmont and Paddington?


410.
- Former route M41 from the days of 'metrobus' which has always operated out of R6 only, never shared between regions.

- There are trips that terminate or commence at Burwood respectively in both directions at different times of the day (Early morning, AM peak, PM
peak and late night) thus creating an operational efficiency as Burwood Depot is only a short distance away.


530.
- Commenced on 4/6/2017 - STA timetable and network changes. Route 530 boosted services between Burwood and Drummoyne whilst absorbing
most of route 536 services between Hunters Hill and Chatswood. Region 7 Route 536 was reduced to peak hour only and Region 7 route 252 was
extended from Lane Cove West to Gladesville via Hunters Hill.

- Designated as a Region 6 route and shared between R6 Leichhardt Depot and R7 Willoughby Depot. This worked well as for R7 as Chatswood
Interchange was close to Willoughby Depot. There was a challenge in R6 as Leichhardt Depot was obviously further away from Burwood Station
compared to Burwood Depot. Dead running would create an increase in the amount of buses required to operate the route from R6, which creates
the need for more drivers, more shifts and ultimately becomes costly (a bit like Tempe Depot metrobus only - off topic). The solution was to have
driver relief on Lyons Rd near Pine Ave, Five Dock in both directions to allow buses to stay on the road for as long as possible.

- May 2018 - STA timetable and network changes. This was also the isolation / detangling of Region 6 and from the other STA regions (7,
8, & 9) which were yet to be 'franchised' into the private sector. Besides the obvious reshuffle of routes across regions, there was also a reshuffle of
the routes that were now contained within R6. From this point onwards (STA) and including after the transition across to Transit Systems, route 530
was now shared between Burwood Depot and Leichhardt Depot.

- 2/12/2018 - Region 6 timetable and network changes. Route 530 now operates wholly out of Burwood Depot after the reshuffling of some routes
across depots.


320.
- Former route M20 from the days of 'metrobus' which was designated as a Region 6 route operating out of Tempe Depot.

- 12/5/2013. Route optimisation. Route M20 now designated as a Region 9 route operating from Port Botany Depot and was shared with Region 6
Tempe Depot and Leichhardt Depot.

- 4/10/2015 - Sydney CBD bus network changes. In addition to the above paragraph, route M20 was also shared with Region 7 Ryde Depot and
WIlloughby Depot.

- May 2018 - STA timetable and network changes. This was also the isolation / detangling of Region 6 from the other STA regions.
The route M20 was completely removed from Region 6. Region 9 Port Botany continued to operate the majority of the trips with the remaining
services being reallocated to Region 9 Randwick Depot and Waverley Depot, Region 7 Ryde Depot and WIlloughby Depot as well as Region 8 North
Sydney Depot.

- Late June 2018. The route M20 was reallocated back to Region 6 and was no longer a designated Region 9 route and shared between contract
regions. Region 6 Tempe Depot and Leichhardt Depot - 50/50 for a few years. After numerous region reviews and route reshuffles, these days
Tempe Depot operate close to 95% of trips.

! The Region 6 route 320 (formerM20) appears odd from an operational point of view as does not even operate within Region 6, it opertaes in Region
7 and in Region 9. In 2018, it did not appear that any other region could wholly operate the M20, Region 6 had the resources to do so (buses and
drivers).

! What will happen to the route 320 when the Sydney Metro City & South West opens? Will the 320 bet truncated to only operate between Zetland
and Central?


Route 400 reinstatement.
If this was to occur, there would have to be numerous operational efficiencies demonstrated through scheduling and rostering to reduce the amount of buses and drivers required to operate the services and also reduce dead running. Region 6 has Burwood Depot, Kingsgrove Depot and Tempe Depot all within short distance to the former route 400. Region 9 has all three depots (Port Botany, Randwick and Waverley) all within short distance to the former route 400.

I don't think that current contract environment allows for route sharing.

[J_Busworth]

The only other change of note as part of the 29 April changes seems to be the extension of 362 services to run on weekends year round, as opposed to just during daylight savings.

Information also seems to suggest more artics on Route 343 later in the evenings. Given current overcrowding issues there, that can only be a good thing.

This lot of changes seems to include none of the promises made by the Member for Coogee at the election. Returning Routes 339 and 373 to Circular Quay and bringing back the 378 and 400 are probably longer term goals that would require more buses and drivers. These changes seem to be relatively neutral on the peak bus requirement in comparison. Communication to local Labor Party members earlier this year stated that the 339 and 373 extensions would occur later this year pending driver numbers.

[Linto63]

So slowly the region 9 network is getting closer to what it was before the light rail. Whether the light rail should have been built is another discussion, but going back to having all buses proceed to Circular Quay when there are ample opportunities to change en-route to high frequency services is not particularly sensible. The government is pandering to a vocal minority by the sound of it rather than looking at the big picture.

[Noel]

The government is pandering to a vocal minority by the sound of it rather than looking at the big picture.

And not to forget the fact that something will have to give to fund these as I cannot see them pulling funding out of nowhere for these when apparently we can't afford to fund stuff the state actually needs.

Good luck getting votes when you slash the 20 minute services to every 30 and the 10 minute ones to every 15 for a small minority of people who likely travel infrequently.

[Noel]

389.
- What would people think if this service was split up into route 389 North Bondi - Circular Quay and route 443 The Star - Town Hall loop service? I wonder how many passengers travel between Pyrmont and Paddington?

I think this would be the best outcome.

Demand on the pyrmont side definitely outweighs the Paddington side.

A 443 every 8-10 mins all day and a 389 every 15-20 would suit demand much better.

[hornetfig]

But 389 was split to make 379 to address the absolutely, legendarily, beyond woeful on-time running of the 389. The Circular Quay -> Pyrmont change didn't help, but it was in that state before that change.

[swtt]

Changes to the TJHB network start on 29 April. The biggest change is routes 392x and 394x will operate as loop services and now service Elizabeth St in both directions.

In the AM peak, 394x services will operate into the city as current before serving stops along Elizabeth St and then operating back out as far as Maroubra Jn. The opposite happens in the afternoon.
In the AM peak, 392x services will operate into the city as current before serving stops along Elizabeth St and then operating back out as far as Eastgardens. The opposite happens in the afternoon.

All of the remaining express services stay on Castlereagh St.

And after a year in power, it appears like they weren't able to find enough money to return the 400 like the promised every second of the election campaign .

Is there some web page where these changes are documented atm?

[iamthouth]

Robert Henderson hasn't updated his site in a year, but he does collate the history.
https://sydneybusroutes.com

[robert]

Robert Henderson hasn't updated his site in a year, but he does collate the history.
https://sydneybusroutes.com

Last year, at the suggestion of some members of Sydney Bus Museum, I handed over the uploading of changes to sydneybusroutes.com to the Museum, as they said they had people more IT-savvy than me to do so.

In doing so, they copied the website to the Museum website, sydneybusmuseum.com. After somewhat of a delay, they then posted updated PDFs to that site, under the menu item of "Other sites". Meanwhile sydneybusroutes.com remains in an non-updated state. I am currently in discussion with the Museum to rectify this situation.

You may wish to contact the Museum about the location of the "new" website.

Robert

[swtt]

Hopefully the "extensions" to the 394x would include stops at UNSW to help relieve overcrowding on the 396 services?

If so, it'll be the 895 reincarnated.... not even light rail could help save the patronage explosion that UNSW generates Nevertheless, it'd be a far better use of resources to have the 394X and 392X run in the contrapeak directions as well.

[pgt]

389.
- What would people think if this service was split up into route 389 North Bondi - Circular Quay and route 443 The Star - Town Hall loop service? I
wonder how many passengers travel between Pyrmont and Paddington?

Assuming both routes (and thus operators) have sufficient resources, it's definitely something I could see happening.
Not that I've been on the bus through Town Hall (have been on it going both ways, but always starting from Town Hall), may even give a bit more efficiency thus on-time running on the Paddington side - sometimes see bunching and late services [this was one of the routes Transit Systems used the "headway" setup to manage this from memory].

Though for a bus from Paddington to terminate at Town Hall, is there a place to lay up a bus or will it have to be scheduled as a loop (going via, say, Clarence/Market/York St... noting the left turn from York to Druitt/Park St sometimes takes a while especially if multiple light rail vehicles are passing).

320.
! The Region 6 route 320 (formerM20) appears odd from an operational point of view as does not even operate within Region 6, it opertaes in Region
7 and in Region 9. In 2018, it did not appear that any other region could wholly operate the M20, Region 6 had the resources to do so (buses and
drivers).

! What will happen to the route 320 when the Sydney Metro City & South West opens? Will the 320 bet truncated to only operate between Zetland
and Central?

Zetland to Central is what it does now for early morning/late evening services (they used to go as far as Wynyard previously).

If the route is removed Central to Gore Hill without any replacement/enhancement of service on the north side, I could see a few upset commuters given the number I see get on between Crows Nest and North Sydney (granted I use the 320 from Gore Hill through to Town Hall myself).
I mentioned this in the thread discussing the metro where somebody asked about bus changes once the metro extends to the city and Sydenham.
Can't see it being removed, but something to replace it may work - frequency without the 320 off peak and weekends would be too low [3-4 buses an hour, not evenly spaced either] to capture commuters to feed to the metro otherwise especially the Crows Nest to North Sydney section.

Somehow pictured whatever happens to the northern half of route 320 to be something like a hybrid of that route as far as North Sydney (ie. Pacific Highway), but then doing a loop using Macquarie St and either returning or going via Town Hall, thus potentially also allowing for route 200 to be reviewed (again can see tears in some commuters - I've seen commuters go from Gore Hill all the way to Bondi Junction so possible nothing happens to it - I mean after all Nightride route N91 is quite similar Bondi Junction to St Leonards, but that's NightRide though).

[robert]

Robert Henderson hasn't updated his site in a year, but he does collate the history.
https://sydneybusroutes.com

Last year, at the suggestion of some members of Sydney Bus Museum, I handed over the uploading of changes to sydneybusroutes.com to the Museum, as they said they had people more IT-savvy than me to do so.

In doing so, they copied the website to the Museum website, sydneybusmuseum.com. After somewhat of a delay, they then posted updated PDFs to that site, under the menu item of "Other sites". Meanwhile sydneybusroutes.com remains in an non-updated state. I am currently in discussion with the Museum to rectify this situation.

You may wish to contact the Museum about the location of the "new" website.

Robert

I should have explained that I am still actively tracking route/timetable changes and updating my Word documents, for periodic saving as PDFs, which are then forwarded to SBM for uploading. As usual, comments and corrections are welcome.

[boronia]

Though for a bus from Paddington to terminate at Town Hall, is there a place to lay up a bus or will it have to be scheduled as a loop (going via, say, Clarence/Market/York St... noting the left turn from York to Druitt/Park St sometimes takes a while especially if multiple light rail vehicles are passing).

Perhaps in Castlereagh St, Museum Stand F; returning via Bathurst, Elizabeth, Park ??

[Stu]

^ Maybe the 389 can return to operating to/from Circular Quay and the section of route between The Star and Town Hall can become route 443 and operate as a loop service around the Town Hall area.