Aural Timetables: A new tool for connectivity analysis?

A key topic here is transport timetables, especially where there are opportunities for legibility, frequent service or service co-ordination.

Those needing to make a connection typically have to juggle two printed timetables, or, more recently, use an internet journey planner which does a similar thing after comparing alternatives.

In both cases arrival and departure times are presented in visual format.

The visual approach is good for planning specific trips. It could be numerical (eg calculating connections from two columns of times, often in different booklets) or graphical (as used in train graphs, and I think proposed by Tufte).

However I'm unaware of anyone converting timetables to sounds and analysing the result by listening.

Yet aural timetables could offer some fresh insights. For example it provides a way of comparing multiple timetables simultaneously for patterns; something the eye is poor at as it can only look at one time at a time and make a subtraction.

The possibility of aural timetables has evolved from earlier analogies made between some audio/musical concepts (eg resonance, harmonics, time, beat and pulse) and transport timetabling (at least for timed transfer systems). The term 'harmonised headway' hints at this relationship.

More recently I built a drone machine as used by electronic musicians. This is a bank of variable tone generators that can make many interesting sounds and beat notes. I then saw the possibility of audio frequencies being determined by bus and train times at a particular interchange, unwittingly turning service planners into composers.

Such an instrument would be more advanced than my simple drone machine, most likely having a master oscillator and dividers to accurately provide for specific service frequencies. You would also need to shift the start and finish times for each route to reflect actual timetables.

Another approach is to do without special electronics and simply use an audio editing program. I used Audacity which features an audio tone generator just right for this purpose.

The video below explains the concept.

Unlike future videos this one is based on a hypothetical location to introduce the concept of a multi-route aural timetable likely to be useful for connectivity analysis. It starts off with a train arriving every 15 minutes. To this is added a feeder bus every 30 minutes, then another every 60 minutes. At this point the local network is harmonised and the rhythm is distinctive. Then a non-harmonised 50 minute frequency route is introduced and the rhythm (and regularity of connections) is upset. The per second pulse is restored when this service is rescheduled to run every hour. For passengers this means predictable waiting times and an effective frequency for trips involving connections no worse than that of the least frequent route.

You may need to replay this several times. First listen to tones of the same frequency to discern their interval. Once these are identified, listen to the intervals between tones (easiest at lower frequencies, eg 50 or 60 minutes).

Most significantly, note is how the 50 and 60 minute headway services start as being far apart, then arrive at once in the middle, then space further apart near the end. These actually follow a long cycle based on the lowest common multiple (ie a cycle length of 300 seconds here or 300 minutes in the real world).

Such cycles are too long to discern aurally, but a further speeding up may be required to pick this up. Conversely slowing down might help with higher frequency services.

The speed of playback affects how the mind sees these noises; either as individual beeps or rhythms different for each combination of service frequencies. This is similar to Morse code. At slow speeds (eg 5wpm) one must count dots and dashes whereas at higher speeds (eg 20wpm) each letter has a distinctive sound. The advantage of this is increased by the mind's limited memory (or persistence) of sound and memorised rhythms require less effort to distinguish and decode than counting dots. It is painful for a person proficient in the faster speed to return to the lower speed method of decoding.

The same applies to timetables converted into sound. Particularly marked is that the harmonised timetable example (15/30/60/60 minute frequencies) is easier to listen to than the non-harmonised example (15/30/50/60 minute frequencies). I think this is because the harmonised pattern has a cycle recurring every 60 minutes (1 second) whereas the non-harmonised pattern's cycle only repeats every 300 minutes (5 seconds). A series that repeats every second is easy for the brain to sync to, whereas a 5 second long rhythm would be much harder.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of listening to (rather than looking at) timetables?

For precise connections between particular services I still think that either one of the visual approaches are better. However when it comes to examining headway compatibility at stations or interchanges, the aural approach has advantages. Here we are examining the state of connectivity by literally taking its pulse.

New Metro train timetables

Starting on May 8.

Major changes for Werribee, Altona, Williamstown, Frankston, Alamein, Glen Waverley and Blackburn trains, with more running direct to Flinders Street and a consistent off-peak cross-city loop between Frankston, Flinders St, Southern Cross and Werribee/Williamtown.

Altona and Williamstown shuttles swapped on weekdays.

Overhauled peak period timetables, with more services on many lines (making use of the new trains).

Off-peak frequency changes: Werribee down from 2 x 20 min to 1 x 20 min, but Newport up to 1 x 10 min.

Major weekday evening service frequency upgrades for Werribee, Altona, Williamstown, Pakenham and Cranbourne trains (30 to 20 minutes).

More at Metro Trains and Herald Sun

Bringing Stations to Life: Cafe 3162 at Caulfield

Caulfield Station's Cafe 3162 opened yesterday. It's a project of Bringing Stations to Life, a Metro Trains project intended to generate activity around railway stations.

Cafe 3162 serves Asian cusine, in keeping with the international student demographics of the area. It was very quiet earlier this evening with more staff than patrons. Probably understandable given its newness and the university holidays.

The cafe is built on railway land. It abuts but is remote from Platform 4; the opportunity was not taken to add a serving window from the fare paid area (unlike McDonalds at Box Hill). For in-train cleanliness though this is probably a good thing!

Given that 'Bringing Stations to Life' is about the interaction between the station, its urban environment and community, it's worth a few comments on this aspect.

The position is across the road from Monash University and the Route 900 SmartBus stop. While just metres from these facilities, lack of zebra crossings, poor visibility (especially if there is a bus waiting) and fast traffic make direct pedestrian access poor or dangerous. If one was to use the 'approved' method to reach the cafe, ie via the zebra crossing near 7-11, the comparative advantages of the cafe's proximity disappear.

From inside the building one can see Platform 4. The view is through narrow windows covered in mesh (possibly to retard glare from the afternoon sun). The view is not reciprocated; very little of the cafe's insides can be seen from Platform 4 (at least during the day). It presents as a rusted metal edifice and passengers would have little clue that it was a cafe since its back is turned to the tracks.

Although only a day old, the building is already tatty. Graffiti (on the street side) appears easy to do and hard to remove due to its rusted surface. Maybe in time this will give what some may call 'character'.

What would I have done instead at Platform 4 Caulfield? Firstly I'd be inclined to demolish all billboards, walls and existing buildings that present a barrier between the station and the shops on Sir John Monash Drive. There would be ticket machines, timetables, toilets and perhaps a remodelled waiting room, but little else.

Secondly I'd have a second station entrance, located on the down end of the platform. Positioned at the current site of Cafe 3162 this would allow more direct access to Monash University and the Route 900 SmartBus stop. This would be aligned with a second zebra crossing and traffic calming on Sir John Monash Drive, slashing train to bus access times from about 2 or 3 minutes to about 30 seconds.

Thirdly, as part of a broader plan for the area, I would remodel access to Caulfield Plaza, providing a proper footpath between it and the station precinct.

So what's the verdict? I don't think implentation has been ideal at Caulfield due to reasons and missed opportunities outlined above. Nevertheless there is no doubt that the concept of 'bringing stations to life' is a very good one and rail operators have a constructive role to play.

The concept encompasses matters such as surrounding land uses, precinct design, passive surveillance and pedestrian access. Most of all it aims to make station precincts versatile multi-purpose spaces that nevertheless remain efficient as transport facilities.

I sometimes think that in the past stations have sometimes (unwittingly) erected barriers around them, and this gives rise to some of the negative personal safety perceptions.

In some local station cases a simple un (or modestly) fenced platform and shelter, accessible from every direction and surrounded by supportive land uses offering passive surveillance may be the way forward (similar to the Port Melbourne tram terminus of Route 109). Yes ticket checking will be harder and there may be a risk of people jumping fences. But bringing platforms closer to people have urban amenity benefits as well.

In contrast heavy concrete structures like at Moorabbin, Roxburgh Park or Sunshine distance a station from life. These rank amongst Melbourne's least attractive stations to wait for a train, as well as being a blank canvas for vandals. Grade seperations as seen at Huntingdale, Oakleigh or Boronia, though marvellous from a transport efficiency viewpoint, further isolate station platforms from main streets and thus urban life. And multiple levels create shadows which lessen passive surveillance and require more intensive policing than a single level designs with no walls and only a high canopy roof.

There are sometimes tensions between efficiency, safety and design aesthetics. Nevertheless even events such as Sunday trash and Treasure Sales (eg opposite Bentleigh Station) demonstrate how simple things bring station areas to life. It folows that a key aspect of station design is the provision of adequate space near stations (preferably open access and multi-purpose) to allow such activities to thrive.