Messages

Look at the mess of labour controlled Birmingham City Council... don't hold your breath.....

Considering who is in Whitehall and suffocating local authorities...

[Under a franchise this and routes like the 310 and 65 could be scrapped.]

The problem with Franchising is a lot of local services currently run would also be withdrawn, what the Labour bloke hasn't factored in is the fact and I'll use Walsall as Midlands Today were there when the they reported on this is Roadworks and the fact all it takes is one motorway M6 or M5 to be screwed and all the A Roads become congested. I often wonder what people who moan expect the bus to do fly. Walsall alone the 529 which was mentioned for years has had J10 works these cause delays, this would also affect the 41 down Bloxwhich Lane. If the M6 at either J10, J9 or J8/7 is screwed this causes the A34, A454, A463, A461, A462, A4444, A4038 and countless other roads delays hence delaying the X51, 51, 34, 37, 39, 11, 11A, 529, 41 as traffic looks to Divert from the M6 along the A34 onto to say the A454 to get down to J9 or J10 this also delays the 79 in Darlaston. Then City Services are delayed by Metro Works.

As someone who has used mostly NX buses for the last 3 or 4 years they are more reliable than the Thandi 37 which ran every 20 minutes but disappeared often on Fridays. Other factors are the Tram when it was down it put more cars on the road and more people on the 79/74 the 79 would often start to get busy normally between Darlaston and Wolverhampton, it was often almost full by the time it reached Darlaston. The M5 and M6 cause West Brom buses to be delayed notably the 74. The 37 is being run by NX of Evening on tender and Commercially I believe during the day to cover for Thandi, NX only ran it between Darlaston and Willenhall. Under a franchise this and routes like the 310 and 65 could be scrapped.

The biggest issue is Councils and MP's almost destroying the bus services, the removal of the A34 flyover makes the X51 10 minutes longer and at Peak times stuck in Traffic. The constant approval of Roadworks at busy times. Last year The 79 was affected by 3 or 4 set of roadworks in Bilston within the space of a few weeks. Initially it was an overnight resurfacing Job on Mount Pleasant. Then they screwed that up so the A41 at the junction was down to Temporary Lights, then they moved these further down to near the Island for 5G City Fibre works then there was some by the Peugeot Garage the other side of that island not forgetting the roadworks they do in Hilltop or Wednesbury. This year has seen two lots of work in Wednesbury and some in Bilston. Willenhall has seen some. Franchising just causes more issues as Diamond might take on the 37 there might be Roadworks in Tividale making it late and then some in Willenhall.

Other issues include ASB on the 29, 69, 70, 70A, 37, 11 and other routes. This current Mayor isn't perfect in my eyes but Bus Fares are cheap, he has said the bus is the backbone which it is and has acknowledged that there needs to be better infrastructure in place

There's no proof that existing bus services would be withdrawn if franchising comes in, and then, by TfWM standards, any journey must have at least EIGHT passengers to provide a feeder service so users can interchange. If there are more than TEN per journey then where possible a direct facility is provided.
 In the built up area no one should be more than 400 metres from a bus service between 0700 and 1900 and within 700 metres other times. In areas of lower density, 700 metres standard applies. The above distances are reduced by 20% to 320 metres and 560 metres in areas of severe gradients or where a high proportion of elderly people or people with mobility difficulties reside.

 This is TfWM policy, so would no doubt carry on, even if franchising was brought in. Personally, I feel that we need franchising, as it is near enough a Mobico-Rotala duopoly in the region, and franchising would bring in new companies to run services (see Manchester, where Comfortdelgro have won franchises and broken up the South Manchester monopoly Stagecoach has).

It will also allow for a cohesive approach, where local authorities and the franchising authority can introduce additional bus priority, knowing that the franchised routes can't be changed or cut at an operators whim (such as when Diamond tried to scrap the 226 and 002, 2 commercial routes)

In the compound at Coventry garage.

Technically though they're not on the NXWM fleet strength though

E004 and E017 please. Of all the YW electrics, these are proving elusive.

Both are no longer with NXWM. The "Z" ones that are in service replaced E004, E017 and E018.

Maybe a new voice or (unlikely, but still hopeful for) the return of Mr. Platinum?

Don't even need that. Text to Speech or AI could do it for them.

Out of curiosity, why was it withdrawn from the Plough and Harrow in favour of the Middleway, and why was the evening Star City journies cut

Is there a list anywhere of what services Tividale depot operate I've just applied for a job and wandered what routes they run

Apart from most of the Stourbridge area routes*, the 50 and 150, the Solihull network (i think) and a couple of others, Tividale run the routes that serve Birmingham and the Black Country. 

* 1 bus of the 4 on the 25 Dudley to Stourbridge is ran from Tividale, the other 3 are Kiddy duties

Having got to know the Stourbridge network quite well in recent years, I'd make changes to the tendered routes running from there, particularly the 17, 25 and 57.

The 25 seems to carry fresh air on the Stourbridge and Wollaston section so I'd get rid of that service altogether (seems to run a crazy 30 min frequency too which is far too high on that section).

I'd replace it by re-routing the 17 along the 25 route from Stourbridge via Wollaston back to the a491 at Audnam (there's no need for the 17 to run direct along that section of a491 from Stourbridge as it is served by the pretty regular commercial services 6 and 16).

I would then also send the 17 along the current 25 route by turning right up Bretell Lane and current route off that up to Swan Lane. However instead of then continuing the 25 to Dudley, run via Swan Lane and the 226 route to get back onto the a491 to serve Wordsley. The 226 can cover the 25 route over most of those lost sections up to Brierley Hill and Merry Hill.

I'd also get rid of the 57 which also rarely sees high passenger numbers. Most of the route up to Wall Heath and Kingswinford is covered by the 16 and doesn't need replication against a commercial route. The missing bits of the 57 through estate roads aren't a million miles away from other routes either.

The missing bit in Wall Heath of the 57 could just have a further bit tagged onto the 'new' 17 so again the 17 doesn't just replicate the 16 route.

This would obviously lengthen the 17 route but ultimately provides what tendered services should, services where commercial operation isn't feasible. It would also save substantial money for the local authority too as getting rid of the 25 and 57 would save money (even if some sort of replacement on demand type-service, over any substantial missing section, was needed).

The 25 is paid for by TfWM... but it's a BSIP funded route, like the 142. Plus the 57 covers some parts that the 15, 16 and 17 don't cover, with the 25 having been in existence in some form since Hansons started the 250/251 in 2006. The 17 dates back to the 257 of the late 90s, which ran, at one stage, through to Kinver, believe it or not, and then got replaced by the 287, before coming back after a reorganisation of the Dudley-Gornal routes iirc

Funnily enough, the 25's Lodge Farm to Dudley end also is linked to the 257's history... as the 257 replaced the 285, which at one stage ran Sedgley to Merry Hill via Stickley and Dudley... the Gornal - Stickley - Dudley section that the 257 took over in the 90s (the 283 and 282 were the 285's sister services). The 287, which the 257 replaced, also ironically, ran via Standhills Road (which the Diamond 57 touches) and had a sister service which also ran (at one stage) once a day... via Stickley!

Further acquisition from Birmingham Busworks is ADL Enviro 200, YX11CNY - this had been for test at Chaserider, and after much interest whilst there, was purchased.

New to First as DML44193

[If we're going historic, I remember catching the 192 Hereford - Leominster - Ludlow - Bewdley - Kidderminster - Halesowen - Birmingham in the mid-late 1990s, and that was a three hour trip one-way.]

If we're going historic, I remember catching the 192 Hereford - Leominster - Ludlow - Bewdley - Kidderminster - Halesowen - Birmingham in the mid-late 1990s, and that was a three hour trip one-way.

A bit closer to home, there used to be a route 98 that went from Asda at Hay Mills to Sheldon, Wheatsheaf, via most of East Birmingham. It took at least an hour to do the journey, and you ended up 10 minutes further down the road from where you started (both the terminus were on the Coventry Road).

Or in 1983 that would have been the X92 (according to my WMPTE Feb 1983 North Division timetable book) 

iirc the 98 was a merger of two individual routes, the 661 Ward End - Pool Way and 662 Shard End - Sheldon

So effectively NXWM are becoming flat fare on all routes then

Looking in my WMPTE North Division timetable book, it has times for a X90 Midland Red service, Lichfield - Cannock - Wolverhampton - Bridgnorth which clocks in at around nearly 4.5 hours for a round trip, and a Midland Red service 154 Stafford - Cannock - Aldridge - Brum which takes a few hours round trip too

It would be interesting to see if an mticket nBus day ticket would be accepted by NX readers outside the West Midlands county boundary.

That and the "Daysavers" on the Uber app that NXWM are selling, if they are nbus ones or Daysaver Extras.

Will NX be able to repair E062 or will it get sent back to Alexander Dennis to be rebuilt?

The insurance company and I assume ADL and Zenobe will assess it first before ADL do any repairs I believe

Unfortunately the government seems to disagree, for votes

One option being looked at, which would be particularly controversial, would be to cut off councils from access to the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) database, which matches car registrations to their owners, to prevent them from fining drivers who pass through LTNs. 

Cutting DVLA access to stop LTNs could mean councils also being unable to use cameras for other means, such as enforcing parking outside schools, or on bus routes and cycle lanes........

This is expected to be the subject of a consultation, with a DfT source saying ministers were "still actively looking at the options" for doing this, albeit with a timetable given only as "at a future point".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/15/uk-government-seeks-to-limit-low-traffic-schemes-as-part-of-its-plan-for-drivers

Well, from a Civil Parking Enforcement point of view, that would be fun (i say sarcastically) as it'd mean that unpaid parking PCNs wouldn't be able to be chased up. I hope the Tories also ban those private parking lot from getting DVLA info as otherwise its going to cause an unfair advantage to them.