WM Bus Photos Forum

Seen this advertised on an AG bus today, the questionnaire is on NWM site:

http://networkwestmidlands.com/BusReview/BusReviewIndex.aspx

Routes in question are: 2, 3, 5, 8A/8C, 29, 29A, 31, 31A, 49, 58, 59, 60, 73, 98, X64

All I can say is about time, the 3 in its current format is ridiculous...

Bring the 21 back!! Lol

Indeed the 49 is dreadfully unreliable.

I don't exactly know what the big idea is to serve the Great Park. The clientele around there shouldn't have a service anyway with their glass bottles and junk.

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 19, 2013, 07:37:09 PM
Bring the 21 back!! Lol

Indeed the 49 is dreadfully unreliable.

I don't exactly know what the big idea is to serve the Great Park. The clientele around there shouldn't have a service anyway with their glass bottles and junk.

I second that :P

Quote from: trident4370 on October 19, 2013, 07:40:46 PM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 19, 2013, 07:37:09 PM
Bring the 21 back!! Lol

Indeed the 49 is dreadfully unreliable.

I don't exactly know what the big idea is to serve the Great Park. The clientele around there shouldn't have a service anyway with their glass bottles and junk.

I second that :P

I thought you might ;)

In addition, there is no mention of the stupid reliability issues of the Pershore Road .. reliability issues that were none existent until they ruined it with the Sept. changes. How is it possible to do a round 47 in 1hr 13minutes?

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 19, 2013, 07:46:08 PM

Quote from: trident4370 on October 19, 2013, 07:40:46 PM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 19, 2013, 07:37:09 PM
Bring the 21 back!! Lol

Indeed the 49 is dreadfully unreliable.

I don't exactly know what the big idea is to serve the Great Park. The clientele around there shouldn't have a service anyway with their glass bottles and junk.

I second that :P

I thought you might ;)

In addition, there is no mention of the stupid reliability issues of the Pershore Road .. reliability issues that were none existent until they ruined it with the Sept. changes. How is it possible to do a round 47 in 1hr 13minutes?

I thought there were going to be chances on the Pershore Road in this review - isn't the 45 meant to be extended to Rednal?

Quote from: Russ Smith on October 19, 2013, 08:14:16 PM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 19, 2013, 07:46:08 PM

Quote from: trident4370 on October 19, 2013, 07:40:46 PM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 19, 2013, 07:37:09 PM
Bring the 21 back!! Lol

Indeed the 49 is dreadfully unreliable.

I don't exactly know what the big idea is to serve the Great Park. The clientele around there shouldn't have a service anyway with their glass bottles and junk.

I second that :P

I thought you might ;)

In addition, there is no mention of the stupid reliability issues of the Pershore Road .. reliability issues that were none existent until they ruined it with the Sept. changes. How is it possible to do a round 47 in 1hr 13minutes?

I thought there were going to be chances on the Pershore Road in this review - isn't the 45 meant to be extended to Rednal?

Or so I was told, some sort of opportunity for the 2 to interwork at the outer. Turns out NX turned their back on that idea then. It could've improved reliability a snatch but the way things are going on that road is disgusting and is a big middle finger to NX's paying passengers.

Very interesting!  There are one or two good ideas in the leaflet but some surprising ones as well. 

For one thing, is there much demand for through buses between Frankley and Weoley Castle?

Quote from: Justin Tyme on October 19, 2013, 08:45:26 PM
For one thing, is there much demand for through buses between Frankley and Weoley Castle?

I wouldn't of thought so. If you live in Frankley then the demand is to go to Northfield, surely? More like Bartley Green and Woodgate side will have a demand for the Castle.

I think NXWM also need to look at the Stourbridge network as it is a right so and so for unreliablity and chaos. (hint the cross Stourbridge routes!)

Quote from: the trainbasher on October 19, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
I think NXWM also need to look at the Stourbridge network as it is a right so and so for unreliablity and chaos. (hint the cross Stourbridge routes!)

The entire Dudley network may be up for a second review in the not too distant future

Quote from: Winston on October 19, 2013, 10:31:50 PM

Quote from: the trainbasher on October 19, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
I think NXWM also need to look at the Stourbridge network as it is a right so and so for unreliablity and chaos. (hint the cross Stourbridge routes!)

The entire Dudley network may be up for a second review in the not too distant future

The X96 needs definite revision, it is a service that just does not work, very tight timetable, no recovery time, no resting time for the buses and finally Mercs, you cannot expect 15 year old buses to keep going for that that many hours a day, non stop.

Quote from: Stuharris 6360 on October 20, 2013, 12:36:21 AM

Quote from: Winston on October 19, 2013, 10:31:50 PM

Quote from: the trainbasher on October 19, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
I think NXWM also need to look at the Stourbridge network as it is a right so and so for unreliablity and chaos. (hint the cross Stourbridge routes!)

The entire Dudley network may be up for a second review in the not too distant future

The X96 needs definite revision, it is a service that just does not work, very tight timetable, no recovery time, no resting time for the buses and finally Mercs, you cannot expect 15 year old buses to keep going for that that many hours a day, non stop.

The Mercs are living on borrowed time now, it's such a shame really, I love them, had a ride on 1633 today, hadn't realised what a brilliant bus it was, one of the best of the mark 2 Mercs

Quote from: Winston on October 19, 2013, 10:31:50 PM

Quote from: the trainbasher on October 19, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
I think NXWM also need to look at the Stourbridge network as it is a right so and so for unreliablity and chaos. (hint the cross Stourbridge routes!)

The entire Dudley network may be up for a second review in the not too distant future

Well as long as they don't dare touch our route numbers! Surely they can't return all areas to single digit numbers, it well end in chaos

Getting back on topic...

Having read through the proposals in the leaflet, I have to admit that so far they do seem like good ideas.

Certainly the 3 has long been a bone of contention, so any changes to that service would be most welcome.

Taking the 2 and/or 3 off the Stratford Road altogether is another useful idea; the stretch of that road between Camp Hill and Highgate Road is bad for traffic as it is, and ironically most of the congestion is caused by the sheer number of buses, as cars stack up behind them when they stop and can't safely pass round them, as the road is too narrow. So in this situation, fewer buses might actually improve traffic flow.

The idea of a new express bus from city centre to Shirley via Gospel Oak and Acocks Green is an interesting one, but does Acocks Green really need another 'fast' service to Birmingham, and how would it impact patronage on the 37? From Gospel Oak, isn't the current 31/31A sufficient enough a service to the city centre?

I'd say, from Haslucks Green Road, run the 3 to Solihull via the current 31 route, and then have all 31/A journeys run as 31 to The Green Business Park every 15 minutes.

I don't know or use the other services listed that well to make well-informed comments. But the proposed suggestions seem viable to me.

Interesting to see the way they've done it, detailing the problems and suggested changes from the word go instead of asking the public for ideas

Quote from: Kevin on October 20, 2013, 01:49:32 PM
Interesting to see the way they've done it, detailing the problems and suggested changes from the word go instead of asking the public for ideas

I agree, presumably the proposals have been drafted based on customer feedback already received, now the consultation allows for people to comment on these proposals and submit their own ideas based on these, especially those who may not have already contacted Centro / NXWM previously.

If they were to increase the number of 60s, it would be nice if some could run as maybe a 60A to the Arden Oak, to replace the old 58, rather than having them all run to the Cranes Park terminus.

Quote from: neale95 on October 20, 2013, 03:20:59 PM
If they were to increase the number of 60s, it would be nice if some could run as maybe a 60A to the Arden Oak, to replace the old 58, rather than having them all run to the Cranes Park terminus.

That would be good :) but I don't think that will happen but I will be surprised if they do :)

Their suggestions seem to be pretty good if anything its somewhat unusual since they're more focusing on outer suburbs and reliability this time, but I think there's needs to be a balance between timekeeping/reliability and usability. Nobody wants to go to town having to change bus once or twice.

Here's my suggestions:

Suggestion for bus service 3 seems to be pretty good (Diverting to Yardley and then to city centre) since it would replace reduced bus services between Yardley and Hay Mills while making it a faster service.

8A/C - Double decker perhaps? I don't know if there's clearance issues with this route.

Chop the 49 in half, I doubt there would be a demand for passengers to travel the route in full length.

As for 60, 59, 58... If they can increase frequency of the 60 (Some of it terminating at Yardley like on Sundays) to 7 minute frequency then their suggestion is fine.

The proposals are a mixed bag.  Some are very sensible (e.g. reviewing the 8 "Inner Circle" service), some are unacceptable (curtailing the 98 in Selly Oak) and some are bonkers (trying to get an express route up the Stratford Road).

Without bus priority, it is nigh on impossible to get any express bus routes running on main corridors.   The ones we have only operate because there are dive unders, dual carriageways and the A38M available to them.   If Centro, Birmingham City Council and NXWM are serious that we should have express bus services there needs to be some serious investment in bus lanes and bus priority, together with proactive enforcement of them.   Otherwise they will go no faster than a conventional bus.   Also, when are the council going to actually pro-actively enforce the Red Route on the Stratford Road to keep traffic moving?

The plans for the 2 and 3 to be diverted via Moseley are pushing the problems from the Stratford Road to the Alcester Road.  Whilst it might make it a bit easier for people on Wake Green Road to have a bus to Moseley the additional running time would not save that much than going down Stratford Road.  Being cynical, it allows Centro to get rid of another subsidised service (the 650) although getting the quality operator (sic) VIP to run it must be a nail in its coffin.

Sending the 8 via Heartlands Hospital is sensible, as a good portion of the area it covers is within its catchment.  However, sending it to City Hospital would add to running time, and in most cases it is easier to cross Birmingham and change buses in the city centre if you are heading to City Hospital.   Also City Hospital will be relocating from its current site in a few years time.

The 98.  Who in their right mind is seriously thinking of bringing back the X62, which was such a commercial success (not).   This sounds like a Reiss suggestion and should be filed accordingly.  ;D  Rather than inconvencing bus passengers and making them change buses on Bristol Road to get to the Q.E., NXWM should get the council to sort out the junction on Islington Row Middleway to give priority to buses to "fly" over the road there, and make the service avoid the long loop around Five Ways Island which is one of the cause of peak hour delays.  But of course, it is easier for the ptegosaurus at Centro and the city council to make life harder for bus users rather than motorists.

What Centros document also does not tell you is that patronage on the 98 is around 40% up on the old X62 (which I've heard from a source at NXWM), and many buses are now full in peak times in both directions between Q.E. and City.  So that is more evidence that they ought to be pushing for infrarstructure to help buses which are proving to be commercially sucessful, rather than hinder them and continue Centro's apparent strategy to drive down patronage.

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
The plans for the 2 and 3 to be diverted via Moseley are pushing the problems from the Stratford Road to the Alcester Road.  Whilst it might make it a bit easier for people on Wake Green Road to have a bus to Moseley the additional running time would not save that much than going down Stratford Road.  Being cynical, it allows Centro to get rid of another subsidised service (the 650) although getting the quality operator (sic) VIP to run it must be a nail in its coffin.

Personal opinion, but I think routing one of them via Moseley would work quite well, but then I'd actually always thought a route along the 50 to Kings Heath then as per the 27 through Yardley Wood and Warstock would work quite well aswell, other people bound to disagree with me..

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
Sending the 8 via Heartlands Hospital is sensible, as a good portion of the area it covers is within its catchment.  However, sending it to City Hospital would add to running time, and in most cases it is easier to cross Birmingham and change buses in the city centre if you are heading to City Hospital.   Also City Hospital will be relocating from its current site in a few years time.

I'd agree, I think Heartlands hospital in general could do with better links, hence I like the proposal for the 73 effectively reverting back to the old 169. City hospital already has links to most areas within its catchment thanks to the 11 and the 80, if anything rerouting the 101 would help that more than the 8. The link to the QE intrigues me, as by definition it would also link with the University and as such provide some much more useful links to both.

The main problem with the 8 is that it's now not used anywhere near as much as it used to be and hence is not a great frequency, the traffic issues don't help and to be honest can't really be avoided thanks to the nature of crossing every major artery so close to the city centre. Perhaps the only hope for it would be to route it away from the worst / easiest to avoid junctions, such as the turning from Golden Hillock Road towards Sparkbrook (where no one ever seems to let a bus pull out)

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
The 98.  Who in their right mind is seriously thinking of bringing back the X62, which was such a commercial success (not).   This sounds like a Reiss suggestion and should be filed accordingly.  ;D  Rather than inconvencing bus passengers and making them change buses on Bristol Road to get to the Q.E., NXWM should get the council to sort out the junction on Islington Row Middleway to give priority to buses to "fly" over the road there, and make the service avoid the long loop around Five Ways Island which is one of the cause of peak hour delays.  But of course, it is easier for the ptegosaurus at Centro and the city council to make life harder for bus users rather than motorists.

What Centros document also does not tell you is that patronage on the 98 is around 40% up on the old X62 (which I've heard from a source at NXWM), and many buses are now full in peak times in both directions between Q.E. and City.  So that is more evidence that they ought to be pushing for infrarstructure to help buses which are proving to be commercially sucessful, rather than hinder them and continue Centro's apparent strategy to drive down patronage.

Can't argue with the numbers, but personally I'd say the link from those areas of south Birmingham to the QE could still be maintained if a service existed that just terminated there (same with the 99 in my opinion), and the old 62 brought back to supplement the Bristol Road as that seems to need more buses. Yes the city - QE section obviously needs to be retained by some sort of service, and I have to say I think after all the tinkering with the 21/44/20/636 etc... they've finally got a route that works there.

Quote from: Kevin on October 20, 2013, 09:48:19 PM

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
The plans for the 2 and 3 to be diverted via Moseley are pushing the problems from the Stratford Road to the Alcester Road.  Whilst it might make it a bit easier for people on Wake Green Road to have a bus to Moseley the additional running time would not save that much than going down Stratford Road.  Being cynical, it allows Centro to get rid of another subsidised service (the 650) although getting the quality operator (sic) VIP to run it must be a nail in its coffin.

Personal opinion, but I think routing one of them via Moseley would work quite well, but then I'd actually always thought a route along the 50 to Kings Heath then as per the 27 through Yardley Wood and Warstock would work quite well aswell, other people bound to disagree with me..

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
Sending the 8 via Heartlands Hospital is sensible, as a good portion of the area it covers is within its catchment.  However, sending it to City Hospital would add to running time, and in most cases it is easier to cross Birmingham and change buses in the city centre if you are heading to City Hospital.   Also City Hospital will be relocating from its current site in a few years time.

I'd agree, I think Heartlands hospital in general could do with better links, hence I like the proposal for the 73 effectively reverting back to the old 169. City hospital already has links to most areas within its catchment thanks to the 11 and the 80, if anything rerouting the 101 would help that more than the 8. The link to the QE intrigues me, as by definition it would also link with the University and as such provide some much more useful links to both.

The main problem with the 8 is that it's now not used anywhere near as much as it used to be and hence is not a great frequency, the traffic issues don't help and to be honest can't really be avoided thanks to the nature of crossing every major artery so close to the city centre. Perhaps the only hope for it would be to route it away from the worst / easiest to avoid junctions, such as the turning from Golden Hillock Road towards Sparkbrook (where no one ever seems to let a bus pull out)

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
The 98.  Who in their right mind is seriously thinking of bringing back the X62, which was such a commercial success (not).   This sounds like a Reiss suggestion and should be filed accordingly.  ;D  Rather than inconvencing bus passengers and making them change buses on Bristol Road to get to the Q.E., NXWM should get the council to sort out the junction on Islington Row Middleway to give priority to buses to "fly" over the road there, and make the service avoid the long loop around Five Ways Island which is one of the cause of peak hour delays.  But of course, it is easier for the ptegosaurus at Centro and the city council to make life harder for bus users rather than motorists.

What Centros document also does not tell you is that patronage on the 98 is around 40% up on the old X62 (which I've heard from a source at NXWM), and many buses are now full in peak times in both directions between Q.E. and City.  So that is more evidence that they ought to be pushing for infrarstructure to help buses which are proving to be commercially sucessful, rather than hinder them and continue Centro's apparent strategy to drive down patronage.

Can't argue with the numbers, but personally I'd say the link from those areas of south Birmingham to the QE could still be maintained if a service existed that just terminated there (same with the 99 in my opinion), and the old 62 brought back to supplement the Bristol Road as that seems to need more buses. Yes the city - QE section obviously needs to be retained by some sort of service, and I have to say I think after all the tinkering with the 21/44/20/636 etc... they've finally got a route that works there.

Interesting comments there Kevin's.

And he said the 8 would serve City Hospital not the Q.E.

What would your opinion be of a shuttle bus between Q.E. and Town, and curtail the 98/99 to the Q.E? Or just leave it well enough alone as there doesn't seem a need, or rather - I can't see the need, to touch the 98/99.

(The thing I would do is run the 98 to Bristol Road, Edgebaston Park Road, then keep right onto the Selly Oak bypass, up to the Q.E. then u turn and normal line of route up by the side of the Battery Park, Chapel Lane. It'll avoid most of Selly Oak traffic in addition there is usually little traffic on the bypass so shouldn't be a problem. also, it'll provide a different link to the Q.E.) I'm all for a Bristol Road service to serve the Q.E. as that hospital is really too close to the Bristol Road to not be served by a service which doesn't touch it until Selly Oak...

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 20, 2013, 10:16:15 PM

Quote from: Kevin on October 20, 2013, 09:48:19 PM

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
The plans for the 2 and 3 to be diverted via Moseley are pushing the problems from the Stratford Road to the Alcester Road.  Whilst it might make it a bit easier for people on Wake Green Road to have a bus to Moseley the additional running time would not save that much than going down Stratford Road.  Being cynical, it allows Centro to get rid of another subsidised service (the 650) although getting the quality operator (sic) VIP to run it must be a nail in its coffin.

Personal opinion, but I think routing one of them via Moseley would work quite well, but then I'd actually always thought a route along the 50 to Kings Heath then as per the 27 through Yardley Wood and Warstock would work quite well aswell, other people bound to disagree with me..

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
Sending the 8 via Heartlands Hospital is sensible, as a good portion of the area it covers is within its catchment.  However, sending it to City Hospital would add to running time, and in most cases it is easier to cross Birmingham and change buses in the city centre if you are heading to City Hospital.   Also City Hospital will be relocating from its current site in a few years time.

I'd agree, I think Heartlands hospital in general could do with better links, hence I like the proposal for the 73 effectively reverting back to the old 169. City hospital already has links to most areas within its catchment thanks to the 11 and the 80, if anything rerouting the 101 would help that more than the 8. The link to the QE intrigues me, as by definition it would also link with the University and as such provide some much more useful links to both.

The main problem with the 8 is that it's now not used anywhere near as much as it used to be and hence is not a great frequency, the traffic issues don't help and to be honest can't really be avoided thanks to the nature of crossing every major artery so close to the city centre. Perhaps the only hope for it would be to route it away from the worst / easiest to avoid junctions, such as the turning from Golden Hillock Road towards Sparkbrook (where no one ever seems to let a bus pull out)

Quote from: Kevin_Brum12 on October 20, 2013, 05:15:27 PM
The 98.  Who in their right mind is seriously thinking of bringing back the X62, which was such a commercial success (not).   This sounds like a Reiss suggestion and should be filed accordingly.  ;D  Rather than inconvencing bus passengers and making them change buses on Bristol Road to get to the Q.E., NXWM should get the council to sort out the junction on Islington Row Middleway to give priority to buses to "fly" over the road there, and make the service avoid the long loop around Five Ways Island which is one of the cause of peak hour delays.  But of course, it is easier for the ptegosaurus at Centro and the city council to make life harder for bus users rather than motorists.

What Centros document also does not tell you is that patronage on the 98 is around 40% up on the old X62 (which I've heard from a source at NXWM), and many buses are now full in peak times in both directions between Q.E. and City.  So that is more evidence that they ought to be pushing for infrarstructure to help buses which are proving to be commercially sucessful, rather than hinder them and continue Centro's apparent strategy to drive down patronage.

Can't argue with the numbers, but personally I'd say the link from those areas of south Birmingham to the QE could still be maintained if a service existed that just terminated there (same with the 99 in my opinion), and the old 62 brought back to supplement the Bristol Road as that seems to need more buses. Yes the city - QE section obviously needs to be retained by some sort of service, and I have to say I think after all the tinkering with the 21/44/20/636 etc... they've finally got a route that works there.

(The thing I would do is run the 98 to Bristol Road, Edgebaston Park Road, then keep right onto the Selly Oak bypass, up to the Q.E. then u turn and normal line of route up by the side of the Battery Park, Chapel Lane. It'll avoid most of Selly Oak traffic in addition there is usually little traffic on the bypass so shouldn't be a problem. also, it'll provide a different link to the Q.E.) I'm all for a Bristol Road service to serve the Q.E. as that hospital is really too close to the Bristol Road to not be served by a service which doesn't touch it until Selly Oak...

Agreed! I don't see much point of the 98 serving Birmingham via Five Ways and Holloway Head when the 99 already does.

I would like to see the 2/3 serve Moseley rather than Sparkbrook, I'm sure passengers would much prefer the direct link to Moseley. Also, the 3 should revert back to serving Solihull to re-introduce the link between Yardley Wood & Solihull, and maybe revert the 31 back to its Shirley station terminus to introduce the link between Acocks Green and Shirley station.

I would also like to see the 101 serve City Hospital as I think this would serve as a good link for both the Jewellery Quarter and Handsworth

Yes I'd quite like to see those changes to the 2/3 implemented, I think it would work nicely assuming the proposed Solihull changes to the 3 were also introduced. As for the 98/99 I don't really see a need to mess with them, as the recent changes in the city centre seem to have proved once you have a route that works leave it alone!

Quote from: trident4370 on October 20, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
As for the 98/99 I don't really see a need to mess with them, as the recent changes in the city centre seem to have proved once you have a route that works leave it alone!

I think there should be some form of direct route between the Bristol Road (before Selly Oak) and QE, if the 'x'64 wasn't an express service, I would nominate that route to use the Selly Oak bypass serve the QE and then rejoin the Bristol Road, and as for the 49... Something seriously needs to be done about that route, very useful, but ridiculously unreliable

Green bus tried that not so long ago with the 64 though and despite the £1 flat fares it didn't take off. Maybe NX could make it work, maybe not. I do agree about the 49 though.

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 20, 2013, 10:16:15 PM
And he said the 8 would serve City Hospital not the Q.E.

The document from NWM mentions the suggestion for the 8 to connect to Heartlands, City and QE hospitals

98 - I cant see a reason to change this. Perhaps the only suggestion i would have is to alter the route out of the city... Along the Bristol Road, along the new bypass, up new Fosse way and then the usual line of route to its destination. Is there any real need for both 98 and the 99 to serve the same route from Bham to the QE?

29 / 29A - There is a need for better reliability, especially when leaving Birmingham of an evening. Perhaps the option of changing the route of either the 29 or 29A once it gets to the top of Harborne Hill and placing this on the old 21 route to the QE and then perhaps going this way to Weoley Castle, then onwards on its current route. I don't see the need for 75% of this route to be served by both the 29/29A.

99 - If it aint broke, don't fix it... if there was to be one change, i would suggest splitting this route and curtailing it at the QE. Perhaps a 99B (Birmingham to the QE) current line of route and a 99H (Halesowen to QE)...
or --- why not a complete deviation from the current QE - Halesowen section and send a 99H from the QE, down Metchely Lane, Quinton Road, Northfield Road,  Stonehouse Lane, Clapgate lane, Carters Lane, Kent Road and then the usual line of route - this would require a new service to serve the Welsh House Farm estate and that area... why not re-introduce the 20 and alter the route to serve the estate and terminate at somewhere like Four dwellings?

Quote from: jnl1984 on October 20, 2013, 11:02:18 PM
Is there any real need for both 98 and the 99 to serve the same route from Bham to the QE?

Because the 10 minute joint frequency works on that part of the route

Quote from: Kevin on October 20, 2013, 11:06:01 PM

Quote from: jnl1984 on October 20, 2013, 11:02:18 PM
Is there any real need for both 98 and the 99 to serve the same route from Bham to the QE?

Because the 10 minute joint frequency works on that part of the route

And there is a serious volume of students along that section of route, being as it goes directly between campuses.

There might be a case to 'break up' the 8 into 2 or 3 separate routes; it is certainly not as iconic as the Outer Circle 11 so there wouldn't be as much 'outrage' than proposals to break up the 11! Certainly to help reliability, it might make sense to deviate parts of the route; as already mentioned in Sparkbrook, I could see a reliability benefit if the 8 were diverted away from Walford Road, and used Stratford Road and Warwick Road before turning onto Golden Hillock Road to rejoin the normal route, thus providing better connections to the Stratford Road services.

Quote from: wilmotm (Matt Wilmot) on October 20, 2013, 09:53:00 AM

Quote from: Winston on October 19, 2013, 10:31:50 PM

Quote from: the trainbasher on October 19, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
I think NXWM also need to look at the Stourbridge network as it is a right so and so for unreliablity and chaos. (hint the cross Stourbridge routes!)

The entire Dudley network may be up for a second review in the not too distant future

Well as long as they don't dare touch our route numbers! Surely they can't return all areas to single digit numbers, it well end in chaos

It ain't stopped them so far!

Quote from: Stu on October 21, 2013, 07:53:13 PM
There might be a case to 'break up' the 8 into 2 or 3 separate routes; it is certainly not as iconic as the Outer Circle 11 so there wouldn't be as much 'outrage' than proposals to break up the 11!

Not gonna lie, it's an idea I've had for a while, even drawn up proposals how to split it all up with a few cross city routes, but just assumed the idea would get shot down in flames because I don't know enough about operating bus routes and cross city routes "would never work" (or something like that)

Quote from: Kevin on October 21, 2013, 09:44:40 PM

Quote from: Stu on October 21, 2013, 07:53:13 PM
There might be a case to 'break up' the 8 into 2 or 3 separate routes; it is certainly not as iconic as the Outer Circle 11 so there wouldn't be as much 'outrage' than proposals to break up the 11!

Not gonna lie, it's an idea I've had for a while, even drawn up proposals how to split it all up with a few cross city routes, but just assumed the idea would get shot down in flames because I don't know enough about operating bus routes and cross city routes "would never work" (or something like that)

Well it might be the case that you've had the opportunity to look at this in detail, and if you have any good suggestion to make, then this is probably the best time to make it, so please submit your ideas to Centro via their questionnaire, and if you'd also like to share them here, please do so!

What I find strange about some of the proposals is that they are contradictory. The X64 and the 49 are cited as being unreliable due to the lengths of the routes, yet the 29 (already unreliable) is mentioned as possibly needing to be extended to Rubery if the X64 is shortened. This will just shift the problem to another route. And why do people in Allens Cross and Frankley need a link to the City via Harborne? I'm sure they'd rather have a quick direct route to the city.

A number of the other proposals do sound quite sensible though.

Quote from: Mike K on October 21, 2013, 10:09:20 PM
What I find strange about some of the proposals is that they are contradictory. The X64 and the 49 are cited as being unreliable due to the lengths of the routes, yet the 29 (already unreliable) is mentioned as possibly needing to be extended to Rubery if the X64 is shortened. This will just shift the problem to another route. And why do people in Allens Cross and Frankley need a link to the City via Harborne? I'm sure they'd rather have a quick direct route to the city.

A number of the other proposals do sound quite sensible though.

Its just the double standards of this society I'm afraid Mike. It seems with the constant changing of things it'll all, more or less, go back to the way it was with the 62, 21, reinstated and with NX/Centro apologising for the inconvenience for the last 5 years... oh wait, I'm awake aren't I? :roll eyes:

Quote from: Liverpool Street on October 21, 2013, 10:14:46 PM

Quote from: Mike K on October 21, 2013, 10:09:20 PM
What I find strange about some of the proposals is that they are contradictory. The X64 and the 49 are cited as being unreliable due to the lengths of the routes, yet the 29 (already unreliable) is mentioned as possibly needing to be extended to Rubery if the X64 is shortened. This will just shift the problem to another route. And why do people in Allens Cross and Frankley need a link to the City via Harborne? I'm sure they'd rather have a quick direct route to the city.

A number of the other proposals do sound quite sensible though.

Its just the double standards of this society I'm afraid Mike. It seems with the constant changing of things it'll all, more or less, go back to the way it was with the 62, 21, reinstated and with NX/Centro apologising for the inconvenience for the last 5 years... oh wait, I'm awake aren't I? :roll eyes:

21 Bangham Pit, 62 Rednal, I'd love it if they came back LS, just like old times. I don't understand the obsession with constantly extending routes to the point where they can never operate reliably. The 49 is plain ridiculous and the 69 before that was getting daft. How many people actually travel between Weoley Castle and Solihull? Sometimes less is more.

Quote from: Mike K on October 21, 2013, 10:09:20 PM
What I find strange about some of the proposals is that they are contradictory. The X64 and the 49 are cited as being unreliable due to the lengths of the routes, yet the 29 (already unreliable) is mentioned as possibly needing to be extended to Rubery if the X64 is shortened. This will just shift the problem to another route. And why do people in Allens Cross and Frankley need a link to the City via Harborne? I'm sure they'd rather have a quick direct route to the city.

A number of the other proposals do sound quite sensible though.

No wonder why 29A started to serve Northfield recently (https://wmbusphotos.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-basic%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=5939e5632e02f1850f2bb6cdf8d57f7176d4ea6a)

Where does it say they are planning to get rid of the 73 link between the Solihull and heartland hospitals. An article about a fight to save the route in the paper.

It's the Birmingham City Centre - Heartlands Hospital section that's possibly for the chop

Quote from: monkeyjoe on October 31, 2013, 10:48:07 PM
Where does it say they are planning to get rid of the 73 link between the Solihull and heartland hospitals. An article about a fight to save the route in the paper.

Click on & download the pdf leaflet off this link, page 4 is where it list the route problems & proposed changes

http://networkwestmidlands.com/BusReview/BusReviewIndex.aspx

Quote from: monkeyjoe on October 31, 2013, 10:48:07 PM
Where does it say they are planning to get rid of the 73 link between the Solihull and heartland hospitals. An article about a fight to save the route in the paper.

They want to cut it back to the Yew Tree but provide a connection to the 97 to provide a link to Heartlands & City Centre. I would just say cut it back to Heartlands Hospital.

Yeah curtailing it at Heartlands as per the old 169 seems the more logical option, if theres problems with congestion at Yew Tree then so be it, just build time into the timetable to allow for it

The journalists should really get their facts straight.

"Mr Julian Knight has written to the directors of Centro, owned by National Express calling on then to keep the No. 73........"

Do anyone else know when will we be expecting to hear any decisions made from this?

Quote from: :D on November 20, 2013, 03:01:23 PM
Do anyone else know when will we be expecting to hear any decisions made from this?

Hadn't the implementation date been put back to end of Feb 2014? therefore changes should start appearing on VOSA 1st week of Jan 2014/End of Dec 2013

Quote from: Winston on November 20, 2013, 03:19:31 PM

Quote from: :D on November 20, 2013, 03:01:23 PM
Do anyone else know when will we be expecting to hear any decisions made from this?

Hadn't the implementation date been put back to end of Feb 2014? therefore changes should start appearing on VOSA 1st week of Jan 2014/End of Dec 2013

The implementation date was always February 2014  ;)

Although changes will appear on VOSA site from January as you say, I wouldn't expect any official announcement or publicity until at least the end of January.

Quote from: Stu on November 20, 2013, 06:49:28 PM

Quote from: Winston on November 20, 2013, 03:19:31 PM

Quote from: :D on November 20, 2013, 03:01:23 PM
Do anyone else know when will we be expecting to hear any decisions made from this?

Hadn't the implementation date been put back to end of Feb 2014? therefore changes should start appearing on VOSA 1st week of Jan 2014/End of Dec 2013

The implementation date was always February 2014  ;)

Although changes will appear on VOSA site from January as you say, I wouldn't expect any official announcement or publicity until at least the end of January.

I thought at one point it was end of October this year?

Quote from: Winston on November 20, 2013, 06:57:47 PM

Quote from: Stu on November 20, 2013, 06:49:28 PM

Quote from: Winston on November 20, 2013, 03:19:31 PM

Quote from: :D on November 20, 2013, 03:01:23 PM
Do anyone else know when will we be expecting to hear any decisions made from this?

Hadn't the implementation date been put back to end of Feb 2014? therefore changes should start appearing on VOSA 1st week of Jan 2014/End of Dec 2013

The implementation date was always February 2014  ;)

Although changes will appear on VOSA site from January as you say, I wouldn't expect any official announcement or publicity until at least the end of January.

I thought at one point it was end of October this year?

The consultation ended on 15th November.

My thoughts:
- Run 2 & 3 via Moseley
- 3 to terminate at Shirley Green
- Retain 31A and divert to current 3 route between Acocks Green and Shirley then to Solihull via Solihull Rd and Woodlea Dr
- Curtail 5 at The Baldwin
- Divert 76 via Kedleston Rd and Newborough Rd
- Run three 6's an hour as 6A via Monkspath and Widney Manor
(backfill service on Marshall Lake Rd through co-ordination of 76 timetable)

People were complaing about the 2&3 going via Moseley saying they were worried about congestion on the Wake Green Rd / Alcester Rd junction. I wonder how that will pan out.

Is there any further update on this? Timescales etc? Wasn't it meant to be Feb?

Quote from: jnl1984 on January 14, 2014, 09:15:28 PM
Is there any further update on this? Timescales etc? Wasn't it meant to be Feb?

It has now gone back to end of March, LS confirmed this in another thread

Thanks Winston, i didn't see that.

I remember changes going to appear on the VOSA by end of this month, are there any changes?      P.S would love to see the changes myself but don't know how to access

Quote from: Sayeed_M on January 28, 2014, 08:12:47 PM
I remember changes going to appear on the VOSA by end of this month, are there any changes?      P.S would love to see the changes myself but don't know how to access

Nothing on VOSA at the moment, but wouldn't hold your breath, if its anything like the last network review it will be rather a flop.

Unlike previous reviews, proposals were outlined beforehand, for passengers to be consulted on.

It would be interesting to see how many proposals actually come to fruition.

You can see the proposals suggested in the original leaflet sent out here:
http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/web/FILES/PDFss/South-birmingham-and-solihull.pdf

Quote from: Sayeed_M on January 28, 2014, 08:12:47 PM
I remember changes going to appear on the VOSA by end of this month, are there any changes?      P.S would love to see the changes myself but don't know how to access

http://www.tan.gov.uk/tanen/vosa_selfserviceopbusregsearch_new.asp can help find out what services have been registered.

Quote from: Stu on January 28, 2014, 08:37:19 PM
Unlike previous reviews, proposals were outlined beforehand, for passengers to be consulted on.

It would be interesting to see how many proposals actually come to fruition.

You can see the proposals suggested in the original leaflet sent out here:
http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/web/FILES/PDFss/South-birmingham-and-solihull.pdf

The problem is that the proposals were put out to consultation, but in my mind, Centro already have an idea as to what they want to do anyway.

The 49 as has been said is useful but is too long and prone to delays. Nobody in their right mind would use it end to end when you could get from Castle to Solihull via City in much less time. Maybe curtail it in Rubery or Frankley. If they chopped it in half somewhere like Cotteridge, Centro would become bogged down by angry passengers. As for the 2 and 3, you could extend to 3 back to Solihull via the current 31 route thus reinstating the direct Yardley Wood to Solihull link but was it successful first time round? I personally think the link between Acocks Green, shirley and Solihull and/or Shirley Green works better and carries more passengers As for the 5, it could be split in two somewhere like The Baldwin because patronage sometimes seems to be non existant after Shirley towards Hall Green or to explain it better from my own observations the majority of people use it between Solihull, Widney Manor and Shirley or from Hall Green to city but I stand to be corrected. I've not used the 29/29A so could,kt comment. Does the inner Circle actually carry many people or does congestion drive down the reliability given its proximity to the city centre and main roads in/out of the city. I think the trouble with TGB 64 was that some people didn't know it was there, maybe a second attempt at a link from the main Bristol Road into the QE. The 98/99 awork well as they are so mits off. What about replacing the X64 and bringing back to 62 to serve Frankley to Rubery also full augmenting BR capacity. It never seems like anybody uses it from Rubery to Frankley, whether things pick up between Frankley and Northfield patronage wise (calling on the knowledge of LS at this point). That's as far as my knowledge goes without spouting rubbish. Maybe my ideas are a tad late but may interest some people.

Quote from: Ashley on January 28, 2014, 08:59:18 PM
The 49 as has been said is useful but is too long and prone to delays. Nobody in their right mind would use it end to end when you could get from Castle to Solihull via City in much less time. Maybe curtail it in Rubery or Frankley. If they chopped it in half somewhere like Cotteridge, Centro would become bogged down by angry passengers. As for the 2 and 3, you could extend to 3 back to Solihull via the current 31 route thus reinstating the direct Yardley Wood to Solihull link but was it successful first time round? I personally think the link between Acocks Green, shirley and Solihull and/or Shirley Green works better and carries more passengers As for the 5, it could be split in two somewhere like The Baldwin because patronage sometimes seems to be non existant after Shirley towards Hall Green or to explain it better from my own observations the majority of people use it between Solihull, Widney Manor and Shirley or from Hall Green to city but I stand to be corrected. I've not used the 29/29A so could,kt comment. Does the inner Circle actually carry many people or does congestion drive down the reliability given its proximity to the city centre and main roads in/out of the city. I think the trouble with TGB 64 was that some people didn't know it was there, maybe a second attempt at a link from the main Bristol Road into the QE. The 98/99 awork well as they are so mits off. What about replacing the X64 and bringing back to 62 to serve Frankley to Rubery also full augmenting BR capacity. It never seems like anybody uses it from Rubery to Frankley, whether things pick up between Frankley and Northfield patronage wise (calling on the knowledge of LS at this point). That's as far as my knowledge goes without spouting rubbish. Maybe my ideas are a tad late but may interest some people.

Thanks for that, Ash.

The 49 I think you're right, can you imagine it split in Cotteridge? Its bus congested there as it is with the endless E's/18/84/45/47 etc without adding to it. It needs to be shortened from the Weoley Castle end ideally, as patronage I've noticed from Northfield to The Castle is on the 29 side. With an increased Freq of the 29, the 49 can be eliminated to there. Of course you're going to upset some people, but look at the upset with the 21 change?

X64 is dead from Robbery Not-So-Great Park to about Bartley Green, but even still there doesn't seem to be a massive usage for 30minute freq. The 98 is pretty busy all the time so the only thing which is needed is more running time.

Personal reckoning would be to bring back the 62, for two reasons. It'll alleviate the pressure on the 63 [especially the scummy College. And yes, it is scummy. So no Politically Correct Police thank you!] And also it is not rare for there to be a healthy seated load on the 98 up to Rednal, of which can be helped by the 62. - but I think it should be put on its own timetable, to coerce with the busy spells but also possibly use the ByPass - alas we're onto 964 territory!

Don't think this has been mentioned - but I'm 99% sure the 49Es are being replaced with a 15 minute frequency along the whole route, with the terminus either Holly Hill or Allens Cross.

Quote from: Russ Smith on January 29, 2014, 01:40:51 PM
Don't think this has been mentioned - but I'm 99% sure the 49Es are being replaced with a 15 minute frequency along the whole route, with the terminus either Holly Hill or Allens Cross.

I wouldnt have thought it would be Holly Hill as the terminus is served by both 61 and 63 and is often full of buses.

If you decreased the 49 to every 15 minutes in any section. That would reak havoc come school and college chucking out time especially in Solihull. Terminate it at Holly Hill. If they're carrying on any further towards Northfield they could change on to the 61. As most of them in that area probably use out of date travelcards or daysavers, it wouldn't make much difference even though you'd still get moaned at.

As for the X64, could that not just be scrapped and as you say LS bring back the 62 to augment the 98 along BR given you only really need one bus service to the not so Great Park.

I hope that they don't decide to extend the 29 to Frankley.  The 29 suffers from reliability issues at the best of times, and so can't see that an extension would be the best option.  Do people living in Frankley want to go to Weoley Castle?

Perhaps running the 49 to the Royal Orthopedic Hospital, and then extending the 29A to Northfield would be a better option.

I do think that a quick link between Weoley Castle and Birmingham is required which the X64 fulfills at the moment.  Perhaps curtailing it at either Newman College or Weoley Castle would be best.

Leach Green Lane's an economically successful section for the 98 - if the 62 was re-introduced (maybe even x62 with First's withdrawal from nBus, leaving the Bristol Road with no real limited stop service) I'd leave it in Great Park, and leave the x64/29A out of Great Park. I can't remember which service/s would be improved between Solihull and Maypole, but there wouldn't be a loss in buses per hour along this section.

An X64 to Newman College would work (he says theoretically). Fast link for students into City and still caters for Weoley Castle.

You would lose two buses an hour between Solihull and Maypole with regards to the 49 and like I said, school times are bad enough with a 10 minute frequency unless you put in a couple of dedicated school time journeys maybe

Could the 63 not call into Great Park on the way to Birmingham just after it goes through Rubery Village, and then perhaps an increase in frequency would reduce the capacity problems on the corridor.

I don't think Great Park really demands any more buses - the BR buses used to call at Great Park but proved unsuccessful. The Bristol Road itself could be helped out with the reintroduction of the (/x)62. As I said, I can't remember which route would be amended in the Maypole to Solihull section - 2 journeys per hour would be lost on the 49, but a different service would be re-routed/frequency increased to make sure there's the same capacity.

I really fail to see the so called capacity problems on the BR-a lot of the tridents are carrying round a lot of fresh air during the daytimes and cope fine in the peaks.

Thanks for the response guys! (https://wmbusphotos.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-basic%2Fsmile.gif&hash=1a5545bce897a0493ff96ee191f6d744b5345738)

Quote from: Ashley on January 29, 2014, 08:00:19 PM
If you decreased the 49 to every 15 minutes in any section. That would reak havoc come school and college chucking out time especially in Solihull. Terminate it at Holly Hill.

It's just a suggestion, wouldn't be better to curtail 49 to Cotteridge from Solihull and bring back 49A to serve the section between Cotteridge and Rubery Great Park every 30 mins. Looking at the section between Cotteridge and Rubery G.P, not busy at all even at peak times.

Quote from: DiamondDart on January 29, 2014, 08:16:44 PM
I really fail to see the so called capacity problems on the BR-a lot of the tridents are carrying round a lot of fresh air during the daytimes and cope fine in the peaks.

Well to stand by your argument you'll have to give the BR more running time during the day as if your 3minutes down equatesto an 8minute service gap - standing load into Northfield. As remember, NXWM do not allow the breech of speed limits, unlike your namesakes. (I've been on speeding diamond buses, again - one reason - crap timetables)

As for the X64, it'll be finishing in Woodgate, via Bartley Green and Newman College. Doesn't take a genius to work out the route.

49 still needs sorting in the peak. What was the route lost to accommodate a 10 minute 49E Solihull to Cotters?

Quote from: Liverpool Street on January 29, 2014, 09:55:24 PM

Quote from: DiamondDart on January 29, 2014, 08:16:44 PM
I really fail to see the so called capacity problems on the BR-a lot of the tridents are carrying round a lot of fresh air during the daytimes and cope fine in the peaks.

Well to stand by your argument you'll have to give the BR more running time during the day as if your 3minutes down equatesto an 8minute service gap - standing load into Northfield. As remember, NXWM do not allow the breech of speed limits, unlike your namesakes. (I've been on speeding diamond buses, again - one reason - crap timetables)

As for the X64, it'll be finishing in Woodgate, via Bartley Green and Newman College. Doesn't take a genius to work out the route.

49 still needs sorting in the peak. What was the route lost to accommodate a 10 minute 49E Solihull to Cotters?

I thought it was when the 69 Weoley Castle - Solihull was withdrawn that 49E's were introduced to maintain the frequency from the Maypole to Solihull.

Quote from: Liverpool Street on January 29, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
As for the X64, it'll be finishing in Woodgate, via Bartley Green and Newman College. Doesn't take a genius to work out the route.

So 21 route not going to be reinstated then, :( and what the frequency is going to be?

Quote from: sonic84 on January 29, 2014, 09:59:23 PM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on January 29, 2014, 09:55:24 PM

Quote from: DiamondDart on January 29, 2014, 08:16:44 PM
I really fail to see the so called capacity problems on the BR-a lot of the tridents are carrying round a lot of fresh air during the daytimes and cope fine in the peaks.

Well to stand by your argument you'll have to give the BR more running time during the day as if your 3minutes down equatesto an 8minute service gap - standing load into Northfield. As remember, NXWM do not allow the breech of speed limits, unlike your namesakes. (I've been on speeding diamond buses, again - one reason - crap timetables)

As for the X64, it'll be finishing in Woodgate, via Bartley Green and Newman College. Doesn't take a genius to work out the route.

49 still needs sorting in the peak. What was the route lost to accommodate a 10 minute 49E Solihull to Cotters?

I thought it was when the 69 Weoley Castle - Solihull was withdrawn that 49E's were introduced to maintain the frequency from the Maypole to Solihull.

I found out the links.  The 49E was introduced between Pool Farm and Solihull in 2009 when the 69 was curtailed to run to the Maypole only.  Then in 2010, the 49E's were extended to Cotteridge (when the 49 was extended to Weoley Castle).

Here are the links for the network reviews for anyone interested.

October 2009:  http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/web/FILES/South_Birmingham_DL.pdf
(http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/web/FILES/South_Birmingham_DL.pdf)

July 2010: http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/web/FILES/westbhamDLweb.pdf (http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/web/FILES/westbhamDLweb.pdf)

When is anything likely to be announced? Isn't this meant to be implemented soon?

April now would you believe.

April? Hopefully they're still debtating whether to bring the 21 back ;)

Quote from: jnl1984 on February 11, 2014, 07:31:41 PM
April? Hopefully they're still debtating whether to bring the 21 back ;)

It's annoying though as they said February, then March, now April.

The thing is was saying that the 98 was going to Q.E. only and the 62 is returning.

Quote from: Liverpool Street on February 11, 2014, 07:29:43 PM
April now would you believe.

That explains the lack of registrations on VOSA, after keep putting the date back & back I hope these changes are better than the North Birmingham review 

£50 on it actually finally getting implemented in July??

Quote from: the trainbasher on February 11, 2014, 09:06:42 PM
£50 on it actually finally getting implemented in July??

I'm thinking it might get put back further until any of the new buses arrive

Quote from: the trainbasher on February 11, 2014, 09:06:42 PM
£50 on it actually finally getting implemented in July??

Probably be September in all honesty as then it'll coincide with new buses, new rotas, new duties. [And not changing them for 2 months then again for Summer rotas]

If they're aiming for implementation on 27 April, then I would expect to see changes appear on the VOSA website either late this week or next week.   

Just a bit of fun, this is what I would do !!!

2  unchanged
3  to Shirley, no longer serving Acocks Green
4  NEW  City to Shirley replacing 31 (same route)
5  re-routed between Shirley and Solihull via Sharmans Cross (in place of 31)
6  unchanged
S5 NEW  Solihull to Acocks Green via Widney, Monkspath (5 route) to Shirley then replacing route 3 to Acocks Green
31/31A replaced by route 4
49  withdrawn between Solihull and Cotteridge, extended from Weoley Castle to Four Dwellings via Barnes Hill, West Boulevard and Ridgacre giving good links with ASDA in California.
X64 withdrawn between Merritts Brook and Rubery
79  NEW Solihull to Cotteridge (in place of 49)

Remember this is just a prediction and just a bit of fun !!!

Quote from: Steve3229vp on February 24, 2014, 01:03:54 PM
Just a bit of fun, this is what I would do !!!

2  unchanged
3  to Shirley, no longer serving Acocks Green
4  NEW  City to Shirley replacing 31 (same route)
5  re-routed between Shirley and Solihull via Sharmans Cross (in place of 31)
6  unchanged
S5 NEW  Solihull to Acocks Green via Widney, Monkspath (5 route) to Shirley then replacing route 3 to Acocks Green
31/31A replaced by route 4
49  withdrawn between Solihull and Cotteridge, extended from Weoley Castle to Four Dwellings via Barnes Hill, West Boulevard and Ridgacre giving good links with ASDA in California.
X64 withdrawn between Merritts Brook and Rubery
79  NEW Solihull to Cotteridge (in place of 49)

Remember this is just a prediction and just a bit of fun !!!

Nice ideas. I did at some point in the past suggest renumbering the 31 to the 4, to keep it in 'sequence' with the other Stratford Road routes (2,3,5 and 6).

I think the 31/A will see some major changes; it needs to come away from the Stratford Road, I believe one of the proposals was to have it use Small Heath Highway and Coventry Road then Yardley Road to Acocks Green, rather than get snarled up in the Stratford Road traffic.

Your S5 suggestion is also quite realistic; certainly it seems NXWM are keen to break up the 5 route into two, one of the proposals was to reroute the 76 to serve Newborough Road and Baldwins Lane so the 5 could continue along the Stratford Road to Shirley, your suggestion makes good sense, and the S5 could be run by another operator.

Bizarrely, to add to your list, was a decent suggestion by Reiss from my Facebook page! As another proposal was to curtail both the 58 and 59 services at Swan Island to improve reliability (and add more 60 journeys), his idea was to combine both routes to run Kingshurst to Solihull via Swan Island.

Quote from: Steve3229vp on February 24, 2014, 01:03:54 PM
Just a bit of fun, this is what I would do !!!

2  unchanged
3  to Shirley, no longer serving Acocks Green
4  NEW  City to Shirley replacing 31 (same route)
5  re-routed between Shirley and Solihull via Sharmans Cross (in place of 31)
6  unchanged
S5 NEW  Solihull to Acocks Green via Widney, Monkspath (5 route) to Shirley then replacing route 3 to Acocks Green
31/31A replaced by route 4
49  withdrawn between Solihull and Cotteridge, extended from Weoley Castle to Four Dwellings via Barnes Hill, West Boulevard and Ridgacre giving good links with ASDA in California.
X64 withdrawn between Merritts Brook and Rubery
79  NEW Solihull to Cotteridge (in place of 49)

Remember this is just a prediction and just a bit of fun !!!

Good ideas there; certainly makes sense and like the S5 and 4 idea. Wouldn't mind the 76 cutting off Robin Hood island as that is a pain at times with getting out of Robin Hood Lane and cars cutting buses up.

Quote from: Stu on February 24, 2014, 01:33:36 PM

Quote from: Steve3229vp on February 24, 2014, 01:03:54 PM
Just a bit of fun, this is what I would do !!!

2  unchanged
3  to Shirley, no longer serving Acocks Green
4  NEW  City to Shirley replacing 31 (same route)
5  re-routed between Shirley and Solihull via Sharmans Cross (in place of 31)
6  unchanged
S5 NEW  Solihull to Acocks Green via Widney, Monkspath (5 route) to Shirley then replacing route 3 to Acocks Green
31/31A replaced by route 4
49  withdrawn between Solihull and Cotteridge, extended from Weoley Castle to Four Dwellings via Barnes Hill, West Boulevard and Ridgacre giving good links with ASDA in California.
X64 withdrawn between Merritts Brook and Rubery
79  NEW Solihull to Cotteridge (in place of 49)

Remember this is just a prediction and just a bit of fun !!!

Nice ideas. I did at some point in the past suggest renumbering the 31 to the 4, to keep it in 'sequence' with the other Stratford Road routes (2,3,5 and 6).

I think the 31/A will see some major changes; it needs to come away from the Stratford Road, I believe one of the proposals was to have it use Small Heath Highway and Coventry Road then Yardley Road to Acocks Green, rather than get snarled up in the Stratford Road traffic.

Your S5 suggestion is also quite realistic; certainly it seems NXWM are keen to break up the 5 route into two, one of the proposals was to reroute the 76 to serve Newborough Road and Baldwins Lane so the 5 could continue along the Stratford Road to Shirley, your suggestion makes good sense, and the S5 could be run by another operator.

Bizarrely, to add to your list, was a decent suggestion by Reiss from my Facebook page! As another proposal was to curtail both the 58 and 59 services at Swan Island to improve reliability (and add more 60 journeys), his idea was to combine both routes to run Kingshurst to Solihull via Swan Island.

That's actually not a bad idea, but wasn't the 59 implemented to replace the 54?

The 54 was replaced with an enhanced frequency on the 55

Quote from: Sayeed_M on January 30, 2014, 02:18:20 AM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on January 29, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
As for the X64, it'll be finishing in Woodgate, via Bartley Green and Newman College. Doesn't take a genius to work out the route.

So 21 route not going to be reinstated then, :( and what the frequency is going to be?

Sorry, didn't realise you posted this. According to my sources, the 21 isn't EVER going to be reinstated, the management is totally against it. (Although it has been said for the renumbering but it's going to be nothing like the original 21) Frequency is still 30mins or so I'm told.

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 03, 2014, 05:12:20 PM

Quote from: Sayeed_M on January 30, 2014, 02:18:20 AM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on January 29, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
As for the X64, it'll be finishing in Woodgate, via Bartley Green and Newman College. Doesn't take a genius to work out the route.

So 21 route not going to be reinstated then, :( and what the frequency is going to be?

Sorry, didn't realise you posted this. According to my sources, the 21 isn't EVER going to be reinstated, the management is totally against it. (Although it has been said for the renumbering but it's going to be nothing like the original 21) Frequency is still 30mins or so I'm told.

They changes were registered with VOSA on Friday, so will be happening in 8 weeks

Quote from: Ashley on March 03, 2014, 02:47:50 PM
The 54 was replaced with an enhanced frequency on the 55

..and the 55A, which was later introduced, and the 59 covered the Fordbridge Road part of the 54

Quote from: Tony on March 03, 2014, 06:35:01 PM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 03, 2014, 05:12:20 PM

Quote from: Sayeed_M on January 30, 2014, 02:18:20 AM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on January 29, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
As for the X64, it'll be finishing in Woodgate, via Bartley Green and Newman College. Doesn't take a genius to work out the route.

So 21 route not going to be reinstated then, :( and what the frequency is going to be?

Sorry, didn't realise you posted this. According to my sources, the 21 isn't EVER going to be reinstated, the management is totally against it. (Although it has been said for the renumbering but it's going to be nothing like the original 21) Frequency is still 30mins or so I'm told.

They changes were registered with VOSA on Friday, so will be happening in 8 weeks

Any idea when these are likely to appear on the VOSA website? This week possibly? Once services have been registered, how long does it usually take for them to get accepted and published?

Alternatively, I don't suppose you have any snippets you could share/tease us with?  ;)

Quote from: Stu on March 03, 2014, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Tony on March 03, 2014, 06:35:01 PM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 03, 2014, 05:12:20 PM

Quote from: Sayeed_M on January 30, 2014, 02:18:20 AM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on January 29, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
As for the X64, it'll be finishing in Woodgate, via Bartley Green and Newman College. Doesn't take a genius to work out the route.

So 21 route not going to be reinstated then, :( and what the frequency is going to be?

Sorry, didn't realise you posted this. According to my sources, the 21 isn't EVER going to be reinstated, the management is totally against it. (Although it has been said for the renumbering but it's going to be nothing like the original 21) Frequency is still 30mins or so I'm told.

They changes were registered with VOSA on Friday, so will be happening in 8 weeks

Any idea when these are likely to appear on the VOSA website? This week possibly? Once services have been registered, how long does it usually take for them to get accepted and published?

Alternatively, I don't suppose you have any snippets you could share/tease us with?  ;)

I am not allowed to post anything I know until it is the public domain via another means

Fair enough, no harm in asking though! I'll keep my eyes peeled on the VOSA website then! Just waiting to see what changes (if any) there will be to the 3, 31 and 31A services!

Quote from: Stu on March 03, 2014, 08:13:06 PM
Fair enough, no harm in asking though! I'll keep my eyes peeled on the VOSA website then! Just waiting to see what changes (if any) there will be to the 3, 31 and 31A services!

Hopefully something will be done to stop the fresh air express! I just hope it won't be as disappointing as the failed North Birmingham Review was.

Quote from: trident4370 on March 03, 2014, 09:53:51 PM

Quote from: Stu on March 03, 2014, 08:13:06 PM
Fair enough, no harm in asking though! I'll keep my eyes peeled on the VOSA website then! Just waiting to see what changes (if any) there will be to the 3, 31 and 31A services!

Hopefully something will be done to stop the fresh air express! I just hope it won't be as disappointing as the failed North Birmingham Review was.

Ah the North Birmingham Review - Nice and Pheasey does it!  :)

Quote from: the trainbasher on March 03, 2014, 10:49:30 PM

Quote from: trident4370 on March 03, 2014, 09:53:51 PM

Quote from: Stu on March 03, 2014, 08:13:06 PM
Fair enough, no harm in asking though! I'll keep my eyes peeled on the VOSA website then! Just waiting to see what changes (if any) there will be to the 3, 31 and 31A services!

Hopefully something will be done to stop the fresh air express! I just hope it won't be as disappointing as the failed North Birmingham Review was.

Ah the North Birmingham Review - Nice and Pheasey does it!  :)

I gather the plans weren't that Pheasible?

::)   ;D ;D ;D

A few of the changes are on VOSA now. Highlighted in the changes April 27th thread.

I take it that there is no news of the up and coming changes in the Southern and Solihull Bus Review........The silence in deafening !!!!!

It's a month away, Network West Midlands will leave it all to the last minute again no doubt.

Quote from: Stu on March 27, 2014, 08:24:36 PM
It's a month away, Network West Midlands will leave it all to the last minute again no doubt.

It's pretty much definite as the following:

49 is being split. Can't remember where, but will be something like a 49H to a hospital or something. Sorry folks, mind issue and all..
61, 63 - Timetable is being re-done with some minor timing point changes.
45, 47 - Timetable changes and the 45 to Cofton Hackett via Longbridge Lane, Bristol Road South, Lickey Road and Low Hill Lane.
29, 29A - 29A to Holly Hill via the 49 and x64 route. Timetable amendments for the 29 etc
x64 - Curtailed to Woodgate, with the new 29 taking the slack and modified 49 route.

There is 100% two or more other dodgy changes of which I am without knowledge herein lack of remembrance.

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 27, 2014, 08:51:15 PM

Quote from: Stu on March 27, 2014, 08:24:36 PM
It's a month away, Network West Midlands will leave it all to the last minute again no doubt.

It's pretty much definite as the following:

49 is being split. Can't remember where, but will be something like a 49H to a hospital or something. Sorry folks, mind issue and all..
61, 63 - Timetable is being re-done with some minor timing point changes.
45, 47 - Timetable changes and the 45 to Cofton Hackett via Longbridge Lane, Bristol Road South, Lickey Road and Low Hill Lane.
29, 29A - 29A to Holly Hill via the 49 and x64 route. Timetable amendments for the 29 etc
x64 - Curtailed to Woodgate, with the new 29 taking the slack and modified 49 route.

There is 100% two or more other dodgy changes of which I am without knowledge herein lack of remembrance.

Looking at the vosa registration its JLR. Lode Lane I assume?

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 27, 2014, 08:51:15 PM

Quote from: Stu on March 27, 2014, 08:24:36 PM
It's a month away, Network West Midlands will leave it all to the last minute again no doubt.

It's pretty much definite as the following:

49 is being split. Can't remember where, but will be something like a 49H to a hospital or something. Sorry folks, mind issue and all..
61, 63 - Timetable is being re-done with some minor timing point changes.
45, 47 - Timetable changes and the 45 to Cofton Hackett via Longbridge Lane, Bristol Road South, Lickey Road and Low Hill Lane.
29, 29A - 29A to Holly Hill via the 49 and x64 route. Timetable amendments for the 29 etc
x64 - Curtailed to Woodgate, with the new 29 taking the slack and modified 49 route.

There is 100% two or more other dodgy changes of which I am without knowledge herein lack of remembrance.

See post in the 27th April changes thread. (http://wmbusphotos.com/forum/index.php?topic=2679.msg90407#msg90407) Perhaps it might help you with the changes for service 49?

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 27, 2014, 08:51:15 PM

Quote from: Stu on March 27, 2014, 08:24:36 PM
It's a month away, Network West Midlands will leave it all to the last minute again no doubt.

It's pretty much definite as the following:

49 is being split. Can't remember where, but will be something like a 49H to a hospital or something. Sorry folks, mind issue and all..
61, 63 - Timetable is being re-done with some minor timing point changes.
45, 47 - Timetable changes and the 45 to Cofton Hackett via Longbridge Lane, Bristol Road South, Lickey Road and Low Hill Lane.
29, 29A - 29A to Holly Hill via the 49 and x64 route. Timetable amendments for the 29 etc
x64 - Curtailed to Woodgate, with the new 29 taking the slack and modified 49 route.

There is 100% two or more other dodgy changes of which I am without knowledge herein lack of remembrance.

Few concrete items on 27 April change thread.

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 27, 2014, 08:51:15 PM

Quote from: Stu on March 27, 2014, 08:24:36 PM
It's a month away, Network West Midlands will leave it all to the last minute again no doubt.

It's pretty much definite as the following:

49 is being split. Can't remember where, but will be something like a 49H to a hospital or something. Sorry folks, mind issue and all..
61, 63 - Timetable is being re-done with some minor timing point changes.
45, 47 - Timetable changes and the 45 to Cofton Hackett via Longbridge Lane, Bristol Road South, Lickey Road and Low Hill Lane.
29, 29A - 29A to Holly Hill via the 49 and x64 route. Timetable amendments for the 29 etc
x64 - Curtailed to Woodgate, with the new 29 taking the slack and modified 49 route.

There is 100% two or more other dodgy changes of which I am without knowledge herein lack of remembrance.

49 will operate from Northfield to Solihull, with possibility of some journeys continuing to Land Rover (like some early and late 37 journeys to)
3 revised to terminate at Green Business Park in Shirley, covering part of withdrawn 31A.
31A withdrawn, all 31 journeys will terminate at Solihull (I guess early morning, evening and Sunday journeys will terminate at Shirley)
1 extended to Haslucks Green Road in Shirley, I'm guessing this is Monday-Saturday daytimes only, with evening and Sunday journeys terminating at Acocks Green as they do now.
73 curtailed to run Heartlands Hospital to Solihull only.

That's my interpretation of the changes posted on VOSA. I'm suspecting there will be route changes in Acocks Green to accommodate the revisions to the 1 and 31 services, I'm guessing the 1 will serve Westley Road again, rather than doubling back on itself on Shirley Road.

Quote from: Stu on March 27, 2014, 09:11:30 PM
I'm guessing the 1 will serve Westley Road again, rather than doubling back on itself on Shirley Road.

That's an interesting point. But then, if the 31 went back to Olton Boulevard, then it'd double back on itself too.

If both serve Westley Road, then Olton Boulevard would lose out.

It'll be interesting to see it all pan out actually.

Had the Liberal Democrats Focus newsletter come through my door last night, and was a bit dismayed by the 'front-page' story:

More Bus Route Changes But Who Asked Us?
National Express WM just cannot stop tinkering with our bus routes. Without consulting passengers they propose to detour the no.1 service through the Gospel Estate to Shirley on the same route as the no.3 bus. The no.3 bus will no longer link Shirley with Acocks Green.
Cllr Iain Bowen & Roger Harmer have objected to these changes. Roger said, "the no 1 bus suffers enough delays already without extending the route. We shall fight for the best possible bus service for local residents".

Obviously Mr Roger Harmer was unaware of the public consultation that Centro undertook last year, in which service 3 was one of the routes consulted on. I don't recall the local Lib Dems making people aware about the consultation so they could make their views known, but I do recall both Centro and National Express providing on-bus and at-stop information on the proposals. I also wonder if Cllr Bowen and Mr Harmer even took part themselves.

Also it's worth pointing out that the 3 never really served Shirley properly, unlike the 31 and 31A, which will continue to do so. It's not as if that part of the route is disappearing altogether, not if the 1 will cover it instead. What they don't mention is that this change provides an alternative faster link to the west of the city centre for residents of the Gospel estate.

Stupid Lib Dems...I shall prevent myself going on a political rant! Centro and NX provided plenty of info on this issue and Acocks Green and Shirley shall remain well linked.

Nice to see politicians still live in the real world with the rest of us, wait...

Lib Dem... hahaha, pathetic excuse for a political party. I know (Says Nick), lets get raped by the EU and swing the boarders wide open!! Damn Lib Dems...!

Either way, I think these changes will be for the best, I can not see any negatives at the moment. Well, valid sizeable ones anyway.

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 30, 2014, 09:13:28 PM
Lib Dem... hahaha, pathetic excuse for a political party. I know (Says Nick), lets get raped by the EU and swing the boarders wide open!! Damn Lib Dems...!

Either way, I think these changes will be for the best, I can not see any negatives at the moment. Well, valid sizeable ones anyway.

To me it just demonstrates how these people take notice of what is going on in there own area, for a start, How many of them ever travel by bus?

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 30, 2014, 09:13:28 PM
Lib Dem... hahaha, pathetic excuse for a political party. I know (Says Nick), lets get raped by the EU and swing the boarders wide open!! Damn Lib Dems...!

Either way, I think these changes will be for the best, I can not see any negatives at the moment. Well, valid sizeable ones anyway.

Boarders? I'm against boarding schools as well.

Quote from: williamposh on March 31, 2014, 09:44:41 AM

Quote from: Liverpool Street on March 30, 2014, 09:13:28 PM
Lib Dem... hahaha, pathetic excuse for a political party. I know (Says Nick), lets get raped by the EU and swing the boarders wide open!! Damn Lib Dems...!

Either way, I think these changes will be for the best, I can not see any negatives at the moment. Well, valid sizeable ones anyway.

Boarders? I'm against boarding schools as well.

Whoops, well spotted. No point changing it now ;) Glad you're on side, Will ;)

I don't know if it's just a rumour but a driver said the 50 is going 24-hour soon. I can't remember reading anything about this before.

Quote from: Stevo on April 01, 2014, 06:23:11 PM
I don't know if it's just a rumour but a driver said the 50 is going 24-hour soon. I can't remember reading anything about this before.

It has been going around the garage for a while now. No official word on it yet however.

Quote from: YWDriver on April 02, 2014, 08:47:04 PM

Quote from: Stevo on April 01, 2014, 06:23:11 PM
I don't know if it's just a rumour but a driver said the 50 is going 24-hour soon. I can't remember reading anything about this before.

It has been going around the garage for a while now. No official word on it yet however.

I really hope it does, it's only 15 minutes walk from mine so that could be very handy... I kind of Wouldn't be surprised if the 50 was relaunched as a 24 hour Gold Corridor, same with the 9 but I'll bet that is asking too much given both routes have a high pvr.

It wouldn't be a problem if they ran once an hour like the 97 does. The 97 has a high pvr but it only takes a couple of buses to work nights.

There wouldn't really be a problem anyway as enough buses are coming back into garage from 6pm onwards. The talk was one per hour and a lot of drivers were suggesting it be cut short to the Maypole. As I said though no official word but if any other route was to go 24H , the 50 would be a good candidate.

Quote from: JB93 on April 03, 2014, 03:26:49 AM
It wouldn't be a problem if they ran once an hour like the 97 does. The 97 has a high pvr but it only takes a couple of buses to work nights.

I think they meant the problem would be launching the 9 & 50 into Gold corridors with amount of new buses due to the PVR, not the night service part. I could be wrong.

Yeah I was referring more to the daytime PVRs, you would need a generous amount of new buses (cba to work it out) all delivered in higher gold spec, and that would only be for 2 routes, you would still have 8 left to cater for, hence why I can't see it happening. I do think the 50 has potential to be relaunched as a 24 hour gold service with special return fares, maybe that would get some passengers back from the competition.

In case you missed it, details of changes are available here:
http://networkwestmidlands.com/BusReview/BusReview2.aspx

I've also uploaded the PDF leaflet that was emailed to me today by Network West Midlands to my website, you can view it here:
http://westmidlandsbususers.co.uk/wmbu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/South-Birmingham-Solihull-Leaflet-final-leaflet.pdf