Messages

Purple trident on the 76 @Stu
Not sure what the fleetnumber was though.

4615

Careful, you'll have the BusTimes fanatics racing to 'be the first' to update it!

Not tracked since March, still down there as being in all-over Remitly advert.

I saw a wrapped Dennis trident on blossom field road, what number is it please?

Wrapped in what? And on what route?

So they have gone then?

The 3rd sentance did confuse me.

Not yet, the operator licence will be revoked after 16th June, from which point they will not be permitted to operate any services.

I would presume that TfWM are already in the process of retendering any contracts they currently operate.

So in a nutshell, is it bye bye Travel Express completly, or have they got away with a fine, but need 2 new transport managers?

Sorry, it's not clear.

It's very clear in paragraph 1 of the above notice.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 Whatever

Can you provide any documented proof of all these issues and breakdowns though?

On the 27 route and that bridge in Bournville, there is a solution available there that would provide minimal disruption. Send the buses prior to the bridge down Franklin Way to Mary Vale Road. Go over the bridge at Mary Vale Road. Then turn Victoria Road into a one-way street northbound, back to Bournville Lane, continue journey.

For the return, from Bournville Lane turn Lea House Road into a one-way street southbound, send buses down there to Mary Vale Road, then a reverse of the outbound route. Profile the corners either end at Victoria Road and Lea House Road to discourage parking and allow the bus a wider turn in.

That's just if you want to maintain the route as close as possible to Bournville station if the bus cannot get under the bridge. The one-way streets would probably make travelling around those roads easier for the residents as well, as there's a minimal amount of disruption involved.

I don't think the roads mentioned could reliably accommodate buses of any type even if those modifications were made.

I also think there is an issue with Franklin Way being privately owned which rules out bus use. I might be wrong with this but I vaguely recall a period of a few days back in the late noughties where the 27 had to divert during the daytime. It initially used Mary Vale Road - Franklin Way - Bournville Lane but was stopped from doing this by then owners Cadbury. It had to use the full length of Mary Vale instead and turn right onto Linden Rd.

Someone did comment on my website article to point out that rail replacement buses are able to serve Bournville station by using the stops outside Cadburys, with an assumption made that they use Franklin Way to get to Mary Vale Road and then back onto Linden Road to/from Kings Norton station.

I disagree regarding the 4/4A, the E200 MMCs barely cope especially during rush hour. Just like the 2/3, it seems that they can just about use single deckers, but will significantly improve with double deckers. 

I've noticed the 4/4A struggle when buses are late and gaps appear in service. The 4/4A also regularly get Deckers to help too. 

Whilst waiting for a 2/3 in Sparkbrook, I do often see very full single decks on the 4/4A, but a lot of the time, by that point there are more people getting off than getting on.

I've been in Birmingham city centre myself at the weekend over the last couple of weeks and I've seen first-hand what happens.

With the changes due to the Moor Street Queensway metro works, all the Stratford Road services are now using the same stop, so it is simply the case that anyone just going to Sparkbrook will just 'pile on' to the first bus that arrives.

I think it was the other weekend, I was waiting for a 2 or 3, and I watched a 4 pull up, and a huge crowd of people all tried to get on board this single deck. While this bus was loading, a 6 and then a 5 - both double-deck - pulled up behind. While some people were sensible enough to move down the pavement and load themselves onto these vehicles, it seemed that most were still determined to get on this single-deck. The 5 and 6 actually both loaded and departed ahead of the 4.

I myself have caught the 4/4A in rush hour and bagged a seat.

You must be like me - you just know there will be seats available towards the rear, even if there is a crowd of people standing at the front in the gangway!

Looks like buses are back to the normal line of route. Wonder what happened???

Seems no-one really knows. No buses involved though.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/armed-police-storm-harborne-street-29221956

[there transport manager at cannock needs to lose his repute as obs cannot run a reliable bus service for toffee!]

because that would make perfect sense - the reliability is truly shocking on 826 828 route its just not worth chancing if its going to run any more - there transport manager at cannock needs to lose his repute as obs cannot run a  reliable bus service for toffee! just the same thing day after day its a joke - no action being put in place to kerb the re-occuring issues at all.

I don't object to constructive criticism here, but calling for someone to lose their job, who has no right of reply here (as they are not a member) is a bit out of order.

There's a few vocal people here constantly moaning about Chaserider - also the same people who complained about Arriva when they ran this operation - but I doubt any of them have ever taken any positive action themselves by making formal complaints to Staffordshire Council via their councillors, let alone made any complaint to the operator or indeed even followed up any complaint with Bus Users UK.

Bus times has changed so now only experts can make edits, weird....

@Ingleboro261F I don't know why you posted that in the 'Vehicles Away From Home Garage".

Split and moved into the BusTimes general topic.

Please refer to the Forum Rules regarding finding an appropriate topic to post in.

Height clearance can reduce when a road is resurfaced.

Yes, that is true, but doesn't explain how a 3.2m high vehicle can still fit under a bridge with a restriction of 2.9m!

[What future for the 27 route in Bournville?]

I recently published an article on my website speculating about the future of the 27 route due to the low bridge on Bournville Lane.

What future for the 27 route in Bournville?
https://wmbu.org.uk/2024/05/what-future-for-the-27-route-in-bournville/

The gist of the article was basically that as the bridge has a height restriction of 2.9m, and there aren't any zero-emission single decks less than 3.0m in height*, at some point in the future the 27 would have to be rerouted away from this bridge.

*I have since learned that the Switch Metrocity EV is 2.85m high


Since writing that article, I have actually paid some attention while travelling on these Scania OmniLinks, and I did note with interest the other day that the cab notice specifies the vehicle height as 3.2m (or 10ft 6in).

So what gives? I notice from looking on Google Maps that the restriction shown on the bridge appears to have changed between 2017 and 2018 from 10ft to 9ft 9in.

Is it a case of "erring on the side of caution", or have the OmniLinks been lowered somehow? They do somehow manage to fit under, just about!

Just curious really, as technically even the OmniLinks shouldn't be able to fit under this bridge.

Anyone know of any other such anomalous examples?

1887 on the 80.

Transfer or loan?

See most recent reply in the 'Vehicle Transfers' topic!

https://wmbusphotos.com/forum/index.php?topic=10.msg328450;topicseen#msg328450

I pretty much agree with everything apart from this bit. Enhancing active travel does play a big part in reducing congestion if done correctly. A lot of car journeys that people take can usually be done via means of walking or cycling. The road system here is extremely hostile to cycling, we don't have to look very far to see the benefits of good cycling infrastructure (Paris, London, Netherlands). Bus lanes and cycle lanes please.

I'm not averse to 'active travel', I just said there was 'too much focus', that's all.

The WMCA and local councils have been spending millions of pounds on building cycle lanes/routes, which is all very well and good, but from my own observations, I rarely seem to see any cyclists using them.

Maybe they are being built on the wrong roads, because I do see plenty of cyclists using other roads that I travel along, which don't have cycle lanes.

I would prefer that more money and effort was spent on bus lanes and bus priority measures, that's all.

Franchising is a very very small piece of the puzzle in terms of transport improvements.

As I have said many times before, franchising won't magically make bus services punctual and reliable overnight, you'll still have the same issues. What needs to be looked at is the 'infrastructure'. More bus lanes, and more bus priority measures, such as 'smart' traffic light signals that alter traffic flows to allow buses through quicker.

There's too much focus (and money being spent) on 'active travel' and cycle lanes; bus lanes would be far more useful and used by far more people.

Birmingham City Council missed a trick years ago by not investing in park-and-ride sites dotted around the middle ring road, ahead of demolishing city centre car parks. We now have the ridiculous situation where the two remaining multi-storey car parks at the Bullring and Moor Street are regularly full on Saturdays, and because they are located on a main entry and exit point for buses to/from Moor Street Queensway, the resulting congestion from drivers queuing to get into these car parks causes the buses to also get stuck and delayed.

Sort out the infrastructure and get to grips with congestion and roadworks programme scheduling, and the privately-operated bus services will become more reliable and punctual without the need for 'taking back control'.