How Clockface Scheduling Ensures You'll Never Miss Your Transfer 

As someone living in Switzerland, I cannot stand how much this is important. I'm taking the train quite often, and people are always impressed that I know my local station timetable by hearth. But it's actually not that difficult, I only need to know when trains are departing during a given hour on a given day, to know the 365/24/7 timetable. But they still want to look in the app before, idk why 🤷‍♀

Pulse scheduling is very powerful and impressive when done right. My favorite example is the Warsaw night bus service at the main station, around 30 lines depart on each "pulse". Traffic light goes green and you've got an armada of busses pulling out all at once. And so it makes it the place to connect. And just in general, the satisfaction of going from vehicle to the next with minimal wait is really nice, and so even with a lower frequency, it still feels reliable. I've grown up in an area with pretty uncoordinated buses, where you basically wanted to try find a route with 0 changes, cause you could never guarantee a connection, if it's even a viable one in the first place.

Having the Berlin S-Bahn as visual while talking about "a more delay-prone service" is *chef's kiss* 😁

I live in Switzerland and one time I actually kinda got upset because my train left like 1min too late...

One of the most infuriating things is having your stop three stops before a timing point with a lot of padding in the schedule. You routinely see buses flying past 3-5 minutes early, and because the timing point is so close, they don't care about stopping and rush to the timing point to prolong their "break" at the timing point. One arrived at the timing point 10 minutes early. It was a 30 minute frequency too, so guess who missed it and was late for work.

Excellent video! Unsurprisingly you gave considerable prominence to Switzerland and its taktfahrplan, first introduced in 1982. But the Netherlands, which of course is 'not just bikes', has had a taktfahrplan based on 15/30/60 frequencies for even longer. There was certainly one in the Netherlands in 1977, the first year I visited that country. It should be stressed that both the Dutch and the Swiss construct their transport infrastructure to facilitate the taktfahrplan. (edit - a Dutch commentator indicates that their taktfahrplan started in 1938.)

I think takts are good, but the frequency of all of the services at a takt must agree. Otherwise you end up in very awkward situations like, say, waiting 15+ minutes for the next leg of the trip because the previous route is much more frequent than the last mile trip. It's frustrating transferring from rail to buses to bring me to my destination in Los Angeles.

Mind blown by your local bus example. London has a mix of the two ways of operating. High frequency routes are headway based with a theoretical maximum wait time, I think 12 minutes is the longest. Anything longer than that and it's timetabled, although variations in traffic tend to meant they're only truly clockface off peak.

Glad to see that Brno, the city where I live actually implemented a lot of these practices like pulse scheduling at selected routes or regional integrated timetable. Btw I didn’t even know that there is something other than clockface scheduling.

The main problem with schedules is bus bunching. When I went to university in Germany there was a bus that would come every 15 minutes, after waiting unsuccessfully for 20 minutes TWO busses showed up!! That is because the front bus is delayed so more people will be queueing at each stop, which the back bus won't have to pick up, so the front bus spends more and more time at each stop and the back bus less and less, until they end up bumper-to-bumper in the worst case.

In The Netherlands most timetables are clockface scheduled and there's often a lot of integration between different modes. Most city/regional busservices are connected to a nearby trainstation, preferably the intercity station. So ideally when you take a bus to a train station, you would have a small transfer time (say about 10 minutes max), you can take an intercity to your destination and transfer to a bus to your final destination.This is not always the case, but I think it's implemented in many cities. For trains, they started a while ago with "spoorboekloos" rijden (riding trains without a timetable - spoorboek is literally rail book - a book with all the timetables - which still is released in this digital age) on a route Eindhoven - Amsterdam (intercity service), but in fact it's just a 10 minute service which has a timetable (it's actually a combination of services that all have a 30 min frequency with different start/end station but a shared route). I use this route for work and it's ideal because even though there's a timetable, I only check if there are issues and just bike to the station. Last year this is expanded with the route Arnhem - Schiphol. Unfortunately, due to large staff issues (national railcompany NS has over 1000 vacancies!!!) these services are downsized and mostly run only 4x per hour (with unfortunately also a very uneven +/- 10/20 pattern).

One of the things I learned in the (fringes of the) transit industry is that headway scheduling is basically unheard of in Germany and much of continental Europe, to the point that I think many software products used for dispatching could probably not handle it at all. On the other hand, there are concepts like "Umlauf" that seem to have no English translation (at least none that everyone can agree on). I think a big factor in that is everyone's favourite topic: How small European cities are, comparatively; clock face scheduling usually makes more sense, outside of a few major cities that are exceptions. (Aside: I used to be one of the people that would go "that city isn't small" during every explainer video, at least in my head, but I've realised that the problem is really with me. I think most Europeans, me included, have no concept for how huge North American cities actually are.)

Growing up in a country where clockface scheduling is the rule, travelling to France was a nightmare because trains pretty much arrive and depart whenever they want. Sure, the scheduling is mostly based on commuter pull, which makes sense, but it's terrible to memorise times. With clockface scheduling, I can easily remember when trains, buses etc. will depart and that comes with an underappreciated benefit: not being reliant on an internet connection. Apps from transport providers can be convenient but also awful to navigate through, take a lot of time and sometimes give you bogus instructions for connections. If you have only a few of your most common lines at station XYZ memorised, you can navigate through the city smoothly without having to use an app. Inputting all the stations and adjusting the parameters can also be time-consuming while on the go. Now, if the frequencies are not compatible with each other, I think it's detrimental. We have a suburban line with 20 minute frequency which is supposed to connect to lines with 15 or 30 minute frequencies. That means that by taking the suburban line to the transfer station, you have to remember for each of the three times whether you can still board the next line without much waiting or barely miss it, which makes it *feel* like a certain connection is only on an hourly frequency. That deteriorates the transit experience. My remedy would be to make lines with suboptimal frequency long enough so that transfers are less likely to happen. A disadvantage about it from the planner's side and in effect for potential users: some routes, instead of demand and potential, will mostly be scrutinised about whether the route can manage to arrive at a transfer point/terminal station before the next pulse. So whole suburbs or neighbourhoods could be ignored just to keep the pulses intact which can be bad. If the frequency is high like every 10/15 minutes, it's not so bad but if it's hourly, planners will very likely avoid routes with 57/58 minutes even if it means more passengers to save the pulse and on vehicles/staff used on a line. P.S.: great video like usual and while you may not be a programmer, I'd love a video on the importance of good design for transport apps and useful features (e.g. predicted occupancy, live-tracked timing).

I opened the video to learn about clock face scheduling but I learnt what headway scheduling is. I never thought a transit sevice running without a timetable even exists. In my city, Ankara, even when the service is so frequent (one bus every 4 minutes, per line at rush hour) we have a strict timetable. I always know when my bus will be at the stop. If I can't remember, I look at the display in the stop and see how many minutes left for bus to arrive to the stop.

France was a bit late on that train as the « cadencement » was implemented on a national scale in 2012. But I don’t think they’re using the pulse system at all (too vulnerable to delay).

Switzerland here. Clockface Scheduling AND high frequency. Public Transit Heaven.

Speaking pulse scheduling, at my local high school, 5-6 buses arrive within 10-15 minutes and then all depart at the same time. Really cool to watch.

In Austria we also have a „Taktfahrplan“ like the Swiss. We started 1991 with intercitytrains an now also local Services are integrated - „im Takt“. Makes Transit so much easier :)

This isn't standard? How else would one schedule a bus but at 9:30, 10:30, 10:30?

Live tracking is another way to make infrequent service viable.

You should see São Paulo's clockface schedule. It works so well and it's probably the only reason São Paulo is not a complete chaos! You should make a video about São Paulo's multi modal public transport. I assure you it's something special!

Clockface works great when the route timings work. It can be rather annoying when the routes were on what they called "frequent service", 30 minute pulses and the route you ride takes roughly 31 minutes to complete its trip. Riding on the third run of the day, the driver would drop me off at an intersection 750m before the GO Station bus loop that served as the transfer point. Some mornings, the bus I wanted would reach that intersection before the bus I was on. No, the timetable did not warn that people on that one route couldn't actually get to the transfer point in time to transfer, but the driver would get on the radio to request that other busses wait at this one intersection if there was a transfer to be made. (This particular routing is from twenty years ago and involves routes that no longer exist)

9:27 "planners in countries like Germany [...] have worked really hard to start to work on their own [Takt]" LOLOOLOLOL it's all a big joke they were planning on implementing this model before 2030, now they're like "2070.. maybe?? 🤷🏼‍♂" xD

Ideally every stop is a timing-point, as every vehicle should have a display at the driver that says the real time and the scheduled time.

Yes, a bus driver from a small city in Germany here. Our regional train arrives at xx:35. Regional buses arrive at xx:25 and depart at xx:47. Problems with that, more often than not, either the bus or train is running late, and bus drivers don't wait for the connection even though they're supposed to... Gues, that is what happens with minimal funding and, therefor, being pushed to a tight schedule with no pedding/timing points. Also, everybody is exasperated and doesn't want to work overtime anymore.

One correction for timing points: it's rare to be able to 'go a bit faster' to catch up time; there's supposed to be just a little bit of padding in the schedule to account for higher than expected loading, but you really can't run 'just thatblittle bit faster', as that means operating the vehicle past safe practices. Ideally, if the driver knows they're going to run early, they'll slow down a bit to get to the timing point on time and not have to wait for schedule, but if they're late, all they can do is operate the vehicle safely.

After living in Toronto and now living in Zurich, I gotta say, TTC is a joke. It's like a 5 year old is running the TTC

Tracking buses on your iPhone is the next best step forward after clockface ...

Clockface scheduling does still require at least hourly service though. Metrolink operates 4 trains in the morning and 4 in the afternoon and that's it. On the weekend it's even spottier. I would like clockface scheduling, but first Metrolink needs to commit to 1 train per hour on all days at least from 8 AM to midnight.

Fun fact. I have a small replica (on a metal shield) of a poster that advertises the introduction of clock face scheduling by the Dutch Railways. It's from 1938.

9:10 the opposite is true at major hubs: for example you need more train platforms at big stations, because all trains have to be at a platform at the same time.

Yesss my hometown again!!, having good public transport makes you a fan of it :)

Nice Posters you got there at 0:30! Have the exact same ones from that artist! :DD

Clockface scheduling sounds great, but in practice the buses are often late or (worse) early, or they're scheduled so the bus you're on arrives 3 minutes after the bus you want to catch, forcing you to wait 27 minutes for the next one. Sometimes the scheduled bus never comes at all.

I agree with this, but sometimes things happen that cause severe delays. I regularly ride a service that is supposed to come at :01 and :31, but during rush hour the timing shift so much sometimes you will get buses that are within 10min of each other! I think while having pause points do help, having tracking like the Transit app have been way more useful in seeing when I should expect my bus.

It's one thing I hate about public transport here in the UK sometimes, there's still bus/train services that run at a 40, 45 or even 70 minute frequency under the pretence of "using as few vehicles as possible" . But that inconsistency in the actual time in the hour makes it confusing and then people don't use it (obviously there's also those rural bus routes that run 4 times a day or worse, but that's a different issue)

First you should tell people what a clock face is.

Immediate reaction of this German: "What? They don't do it like this everywhere?"

Sydney Ferries and the busses which connect to them are a great example of this technique and well worth looking into the scheduling of if you found this interesting:)

Headway scheduling on low frequency services just seem like a very bad idea.

Everyone talks about wanting a system that runs like clockwork, and then there's Switzerland where it's literally clockwork...

Thank you for a clear and thorough explanation. A rather niche example but clock face scheduling gives me a less frequent bus service to my local town. I live in a village close to a road between 2 major cities and served by a bus service connecting them. To run the bus service from city A to city B and through the village on outward and return would take just over 3h. To keep clock face scheduling the bus either visits the village on the out journey or the return but not both. It alternates so there is an hourly service rather than every 30mins. I can see the bus company's point and I'm sure that abandoning clock face scheduling would be much worse for passenger numbers in the long term, but interesting how this worked out.

Years ago when visiting York, England, I needed to go from there to Wales on a Sunday. The trip involved at least two changes - maybe it was three - but a well-informed gentleman on the phone was able to tell me when and where each train would be at each station for transfer. Service is much reduced on Sundays, but the trains were pretty much on schedule, so I didn't have any unexpected waits. Schedules (if observed) are great!

You could've also mentionned the Netherlands and Belgium which also have pulse and clock face scheduling.

It also has drawbacks! For it to work it has to have an extremely reliable operation. This is not possible everywhere without major restructuring of the transit systems. German ICE trains to Basel got cancelled because they always come delayed and the Swiss cannot tolerate that.

Hey! You would really find Madrid's Renfe Cercanías suburban railway interesting. It has many lines that even climb up the mountains (Search for C-9 line) or reaches other provinces or satellite cities around the metropolitan area, it also have a lot of bad sides such as loads of delayed services and quite old infrastructure but I let you research about it for yourself. Love your videos.

An excellent clip on the subject. Explains the principles really well. I've heard Perth is the best example of pulse scheduling in Australia, but haven't personally had much experience with it. I have travelled a bit in Switzerland. It is impressive. Saw services literally depart to the exact second a lot of the time. Sydney attempts it, but the complexity of the system makes it hard in places. For example, the tracks at my local (outer suburban) station are shared by 3 lines. The most used line is every 15 minutes and buses are usually linked to arrival before departing train services (or every second service in some cases) and vice versa. However, the other two Iines each run every 30 minutes and involve a longer wait because the bus services aren't linked to them, and there isn't enough patronage over the several local bus services to justify more. The station and bus services share a common concourse, and include toilets and an eatery and newsagent. During peak hours there are extra services on the most commonly used line, so they don't get 'pulsed' either. The next station along the line is in an associated residential area, rather than a town centre; no buses there, but it has a large park and ride, plus bike parking and kiss and ride facilities.

Heh. Steeles East 53. Used to take that out of Finch Station all the time when I lived in Thornhill, man and boy as they used to say.

I'm having extreme problems wrapping my head around "there is no arrival and departure time for your local bus" since my home-bus stop is BRT and an off-set of 2 minutes already greatly annoys me.

Clockface schedules would not work well for high speed rail unfortunately because short travel time matters alot there and Clockface schedules would only work at city level like s bahns or regional trains

Meanwhile my local bus leaves at :10 and :40 every hour....except at 3 times a day, when it leaves at :05 and :35 for seemingly no reason. Then on weekends, it does only :40, except at noon when it's :35 again...

There is of course a "drawback" of the swiss pulse system. You have to build your infrastructure to fit the pulse. Rather than make the most efficient improvement to speed the network up. For example the Route, Zurich to St. Gallen, takes about 65 mins. For the Pulse to work properly they must bring it down to 50-55min, so you can properly change trains in the station. To achieve these 10mins savings, it looks like a shitload of money has to be spent for tunnels and new straighter lines. While other lines could be quite cheaple sped up, but it's not done because they fit the Takt already anyways. PS: It's also funny, that in Switzerland most cities are somewhat exactly 25 or 50 mins apart. As if they knew 500 years ago, that a Takt-timetable is planned. XD

live in NE England a lot of daytime services run at 10 or 12-minute frequencies others at 30min. which means you can quickly remember the timetable but I also aim to catch the less frequent service first even if this means coming back a different way

In Phoenix, AZ, the buses and the light rail have clockface scheduling. But, they fail to have pulsed transfers, which is especially problematic for the bus routes following the grid network. Maybe improvements like dedicated lanes may help, or maybe not.

In my experience, most Australian cities *try* to go clockface with their buses and trains, but usually screw it up by jamming extra services in during peak. So buses might come 17 minutes past the hour in the early morning, then every 22 minutes during morning peak, then 39 minutes past the hour during the middle of the day, then every 14 minutes during afternoon peak, then 53 minutes past the hour in the evening. It's even worse for rail where they try to alternate express and all-stops services, I've had to sit and wait in a station because I needed to be on the all-stops service but the all-stops train had to wait for the express to pass them.

Could you do a video on the market for public transit? In North America transit investments have often been justified as adding capacity to get workers downtown that is cheaper than building new freeway lanes. But pre-COVID the journey to work was only 18% of total trips, and probably much less now that many downtown workers now work from home several days per week. I believe the market should move to (i) increasing the proportion the a city where it is feasible to live carless or car-lite (one car per household), and (ii) those unable to drive (which is 30% in the US), which includes children, elderly, those with a disability, or by choice, who would otherwise be completely dependent on someone else to drive them. To service both these markets requires attractive all-day frequencies of 20 minutes or better to major destinations such as shopping centres, schools and connections to the rest of the transit network such as a train station.

Wait, so you're telling me that there are systems out there that don't schedule their lines? In Vienna, even the U1 at morning peak is scheduled (interval 2.3 min) and it is basically the only line in Vienna that doesn't have a clockface schedule (as in an interval that is not a fraction of 60 min). Sadly, Vienna's transit is not integrated but it's hard to do if you scheduling by defining a number of services per hour. A line with 8 trips per hour (7.5 min interval) and a line with 9 trips per hour (6.7 min interval) will only produce one optimal connection per hour.

Ah,. like my commute to work where the 2km bus ride leaves 22 minutes after the train arrives. It's precisely scheduled, and they both run every half hour. Sucks to be a contraflow commuter. (yes, I take my bike. I'm lazy).

There is a downside. If a circuit takes 42 minutes, you can get 17 done in a 12 hour shift. If you force that to run precisely hourly, you're only getting 12 done. I think the predictability argument isn't very strong. We have the internet now, it's easy enough to find out when the next bus is scheduled, where it is right now.

My city does this but poorly. There is a different “clockface” that changes depending on what time of day you are travelling. Morning, morning rush, midday, evening rush, and evening.

I will say, sometimes pulse scheduling is wildly annoying when there's two infrequent buses which are going inbound to the same transit hub, and they both arrive At The Same Time when you've been waiting for 15 minutes.

I still remember my local train schedule when I was in school, to school was 27, 57 as in it came every 27mins past the hour and 57 mins past the hour. From school was 04, 34 of you were curious.

Timing points suck. You can't have a low-frequency line but allow the vehicle to leave early from some stops. Schedule must be kept at all stops and no early departures should be allowed anywhere on the route.

Reminds me of when I used to often travel to Bathurst and Queen St. W from the subway in Toronto. Unless I could actually see a streetcar on its way, I’d just walk. Far more often than not I’d get all the way to Bathurst before I’d see a streetcar.

Only thing - Swiss scheduling requires a lot of space for those trains to wait, one thing certainly not in abundance in city centers.

Metro Vancouver used to have many pulses in the 1970s/80s but most are not operating anymore. A bad decision by bad planners.

Hong Kong buses use headway scheduling, even for routes with a headway of 30 minutes. And that becomes a reason that I rarely take a bus. Extremely rarely. Usually, if I must take the bus, I’d check on their app when the next bus is going to be (it has live updates), and plan accordingly.

what i hate the most about public transport scheduling is when two services that serve the same route (for example train and bus, that connect together small towns) have the same exact schedule and very low frequency, which means that if you miss one, too bad, you missed the other one too. Oh you need to go to this place at an in between time from the schedule? too bad you can't choose another form of transport because we both depart and arrive at the same time. Oh there are no busses between 11 and 13? Oh welp, your loss, there ain't any trains either. At the end you choose one or the other just based on how close you get to your destination and point of arrival, which really shouldn't be the only factor, the totally could have shifted their schedule slightly to allow changing, and i know they talk together because you can use your train ticket on the bus, but no, they just wanna piss us off.

Can you do a video about Bangkok’s metro

cries in german... our trains are in such a big mess and everything politics cares about has to do with cars and autobahn / highways . We have to fight for reactivating still existing train tracks for over 15 years. it hurts.

I feel so naive. I thought this is just how it was done everywhere on routes or at times where the frequency isn't high.

Then there's No Show Transpo here in Ottawa that schedules are so tight it's impossible to stay on time. They also schedule some routes to leave the stop 1 minute before the feeder route arrives, leaving passengers waiting 29 minutes for the next bus

Turtlenecks rule! That out of the way is wonderful how integration between services can make or break a transit experience and in the long term screw a city pushing it toward car dependency

I didn't expect to see footage from Chile, so I was pleasantly surprised 🥰 (00:13)

If you are referring to a @Toronto Transit Commission route, will you call out which route it is and encourage better route management.

I swear "Clockface Schedule" is a villain in The Tick.

Clockfaced is easier on a small territory, on a larger one it becomes a nightmare. France tried to implement it ten years ago and gave up after a few years.

In New York, 7 subway trains always have long turnarounds at flushing-main st and it is really annoying

In Guelph every city bus returns to the downtown every 30 minutes, so you can transfer from any route to any other, and no trip takes more than an hour.

are you sure its derivate from germanic? tact is used in music is it not? i reckon anthing used in msic is likely from civilised nation/s

Do you need more riders to get more frequent service or do you need more frequent service to get more riders? Which comes first?

WHATS WRONG WITH YOUR GESTURES! WHY ARE YOU WOBBELING YOUR HEAD ON EVERY WORD! STOOOOOPP THAAT!

Perth, Western Australia does this really well. All trains arrive into Perth Station at about the same time, dwell for about two minutes, and depart around the same time, making the service very reliable.

I am under the impression that the city I lived in used a schedule without timing points.

I never expected my country's trains to show up here 0:12

2:04 That's also called Hourly timetable in Europe

It is somewhat ironic that I am watching this video while on a sbb train that is 4 mins late...😂

The point made by Nicolas Blume 10 minutes ago that at major hubs you need MORE PLATFORMS is undoubtedly true. Visit eg Zwolle in the Netherlands. Zurich Hbf has 26 platforms. The dead end platforms in the old above ground station (platforms 3-18) are almost fully occupied at 0 and 30 past the hour, but almost empty at 15 and 45.

7:56 I think you started a sentence here but didn't quite finish it.

Clockface scheduling is nice and dandy. UNTIL you need to take a connection that just doesn't want to play nice and you need to wait 10+ minutes in the freezing cold between a tram and bus. Every. Single. Day

1. 3d print a phone holder, stick it on the dashboard. 2. create two identical apps for Android and IOS. 3. each time the bus arrives at a bus stop (or drives past without stopping), the driver taps the big button on the app. The app logs this on a database on a website with a simple GET or POST. If the driver forgets and misses a stop, he sees the name on the button is not the same as the stop he is on, so he taps a small button at the bottom of the screen, and selects the stop he really is on. Of course he should only do this when the bus is stopped, not when it is moving. 4. version 2 of the software automatically figures out where the bus is from the GPS, there is no need for the driver to do anything. 5. Passengers can check on the website where the buses are, and when the next one is expected to arrive, and historical info. The bus company can sell advertising on the website for specific locations. This could target businesses near the customer's departure/arrival stops. 6. Managers can look at the same website and see where the buses are. They can send instructions to the drivers to slow down or speed up, or _call dispatch at next stop_ and this will be displayed on the app. These days, I don't think it too much of an ask to require that drivers have their own smartphones and bring it to work. The bus company supplies the charging point on the vehicle. Drivers bring their own USB cable. Properly written the app should use only minimal amount of data bandwidth. Pay the drivers a $10 allowance to take care of this. Most countries already have cell coverage over most of the route. Note that passengers shouldn't use an app. Just use the website. It is easier to create, and maintain, and one version works with every phone, tablet, laptop, and desktop.

Well in Athens, scheduling is firetrucking terrible. In the one-and-a-half commuter routes you might have to wait even up to 45 minutes even at the common section (in my closest station, trains toward athens airport leave at XX:27 and XX:45, so you may wait 43 mins). Also, the Pireaus-Kiato line gets the same frequency as the Pireaus-Airport line, even though the second one is (or was until line 3 was extended) more urban and connects the port with the airport in an hour and 3 minutes, which is a fairly good time, and people living close to the line could have a good connection to both transport hubs. The regional line should not be underestimated though, it still is a good route as it connects Corinth and other towns to Athens, but i don't know anyone who uses it.

Toronto's culture, I would argue is not to maintain a schedule or maintain a regular headway... Just bad management generally.

I know the times for the trains I need to take at various stations and directions by heart. It isn't that hard because it's so consistent: brilliant system.

Peridoc Event Scheduling Problem (PESP), besides setting time constraints, there is another constraint called "periodic constraint" which means 1 min might "bigger " than 40 min because this 1 min is the next hour's 1 min. countries who takes clock face railway timetables are: UK, Netherland, Germany and germen-speaking areas (Austin, Switerland). PESP shows a good base for connections (transference). An ideal clockface timetable are subway and underground. More details see google scholar.

An example of pulse scheduling local to me is the local urban buses in Umeå, which are based on a 15-minute Takt, with two lines running 10-minute frequency on weekdays and two lines running hourly. A less optimal example would be the urban buses in Skellefteå, which as of 2018 were based on a 20-minute Takt. This meant 40-minute service on the least frequent line 3/30. Not only is 40-minute frequency nearly unusable for an urban bus, it's even worse considering that lines 3 and 30 served a student housing area. The way route numbers worked in Skellefteå at the time was that there were four weekday routes numbered 1-4. Because line 4 didn't run on weekends, lines 2 and 3 were altered to serve areas usually covered by line 4, these altered lines were given the number 0 as a suffix. There was also a line 10, which was identical to line 1: Line 10 only had the suffix to keep the numbering consistent. And then there was also a line 12 which was a nighttime service along the line 2/4/20 corridor.

I am used to seeing bus schedules with weird intervals (often different at different times of the day) like 24 minutes and 35 minutes (MBTA bus 65 in Boston and Brookline), and even 70 minutes (a now-discontinued MARTA route that went by where my father and stepmother used to live in Decatur, GA). Then you have ones where the interval is really random -- like on MBTA bus 66, where intervals can range from 0 (2 or even more buses 1 right after the other) to over 25 minutes (and then you see a bunch go by the other way).

I dont even know If my local transit system has even things as timing points, the drivers are being told to stick to the schedule as good as they resonably can. But some larger hubs (Think S-Bahn Bus) have the busses wait some minutes in case they do get late. EDIT: I think we do have timing points, but I wasn't aware they are called timing points. The mentioned hub should be a timing point, and is a Takt Hub / Pulse Hub as well. The main pulse time used to be at half and full hour; the S Bahn arrives (and terminates) 4 minutes ahead of the pulse time, a new train would depart 4 minutes after the pulse time. Most busses (14 out of 16 lines) would arrive about 2-3 minutes before the pulse time and depart again 2 minutes after the pulse time. Now, the pulse time is every 15 minutes, so they split the previous 14 lines into 2 banks, where some routes alternate, giving some sections a 15 minutes headway through 2 30 minute lines.

Clockface scheduling is if your train arrived at xx:12, the train in the opposite direction will most probably be around xx:48 (slight deviations possible because sometimes there's no double track at the desired point for passing opposite train) and if it runs ever half hour also at xx:18, just subtract the time by using the full or half hour so by knowing one time you already get most of the timetable, I think that is the beauty of it.

One thing that irritates me (I live in England) is the way that (bus and train) professionals constantly talk about a particular route as somehow 'meriting' a particular level of service. Now, if your only aim is to make money, that's possibly reasonable. But it means that a town or city will end up with a ragbag of service frequencies: probably the best will be 4 per hour, but some every 20 minutes, some every 30 minutes etc., which makes for a terrible network, with mostly terrible connections; so, hardly anybody makes transfers, and the managers say 'nobody makes connections, so there's no point in us providing any" - a self-fulfilling prophesy if there ever was one! Whereas, a 'takt' network, especially if at least every fifteen minutes on all routes, will give many more travel opportunities, and offer a genuine alternative to car-driving. Surely an intelligent (/'enterprising'/'innovative') bus manager would be able to make more money out of that than just providing 'one-seat' journey offers?