Messages

I saw BC 5506 (May have been 5505 or 5508) a long way from home running out of service in Kingswinford today.

It's odd that a route which was being threatened to be cancelled has got double deckers on...

Depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle, double deckers may be cheaper to run than single deckers so the company may actually be saving money compared to using older singles on there.

Also, it is obvious (as with all operators to a certain point) that this was playing 'politics' to get the councils to increase subsidies. This seems to have worked so fair play to Diamond. This approach is made obvious by the fact that despite stating every commercial route was loss making in the West Midlands, there was no major cuts planned to services where they compete with another operator, eg the 16 and 50. Obviously, cutting these would not have led to any increased subsidy being given as there is an alternative operator. 

Just to add to my previous post, which I may have submitted without properly concluding, I'm personally NOT in favour of or arguing the case for franchising, but pointing out how certain people will use this current situation as an excuse to advocate  for it.

Deregulation was intended to 'open the free market', which it did for some years, but it seems now that the "walls are closing in"

I agree with this. I think deregulation was a good idea initially and, I have no doubt, has saved the tax payer significant money since 1986 than what would have needed to be spent if things can continued to be nationalised (similar to the situation with the trains post British Rail). However, you are right in that its success is not what it once was.

Deregulation worked really well when the subsidy money from the local authority could be spent on those routes that were always borderline - very much needed but also not economically viable without subsidy, the Solihull to Coventry routes are ideal examples of this since the 1970s even.

Unfortunately, the case is now that these sort of routes suffer from reduced funding, and subsequent frequency reductions/cuts because of the need to subsidise more routes that traditionally could be operated commercially. If local authority subsidy levels had been maintained to the same level that they were in the late 1980s, then there wouldn't be the issues we have now. Sadly, transport has seem to be an easy target for cost cutting in recent decades and the result is what we have now.

Most infuriating is the fact that the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining those higher transport subsidies in past years would have been only a tiny % of the amount that franchising the whole system would cost now.

...and that's what happens with the 'deregulated bus market'.

The more that TfWM have to 'step in and provide funding for services', the more compelling the case for 'franchising' becomes.

I do not see a compelling case for franchising from these sort of routes needing subsidy. Even in the heady pre-covid days, the profit made would not have been significant hence why the 15% decrease (and rising costs in other areas) in passenger numbers has had such an adverse effect on them now needing subsidy.

Your argument will only hold weight when it is the trunk routes - the 529, 4, the main Brum trunk routes, etc etc that suddenly need subsidy to continue running. Then we have a problem.

To suddenly bring in such a massive change just because these sort of minor routes (before the lectures start yes for those passengers affected of course they see it as important but in the grander scheme of things related to franchising, this really isn't strong evidence) can't make a profit anymore is totally wrong.

The ignorant anti-NX brigade will of course be up in arms about such comments despite being the reality concerning franchising. It doesn't work unless you have a bottomless pit of money. We need to accept in the modern world, some routes aren't feasible anymore and just accept that - offer the best service we can but don't try to match something from the past when times were so different.

The 144 route hasn't got much in common in the revised 20 service, the 144 didn't serve the QE Hospital or Rednal. A link to the City is no longer needed as most passengers prefer the train which made the 144 uneconomical

The Bromsgrove to Birmingham route would have continued to be perfectly economical had the will to do so actually been there. First made a massive mistake dropping that part of the route, especially after the expense of relaunching it as the 'Salt Road' route. If they had put a little more effort into imaginative ticketing options (or even more sensible) some sort of NX partnership operation that would have allowed the First 144 to terminate at Longbridge and passengers transfer onto NX at no additional cost. A little bit of creative thinking would have gone a long way to keeping the link going. The drivers knew that, it was just a shame those making the decisions couldn't see this.

The link to the QE will no doubt be popular. However, I'd imagine that NX may well have gone the full length back to Brum if only it wasn't for their driver shortage. Hopefully, the increased pay should reduce this so perhaps in the next year or so, this route will be looked at again and expanded further.

https://bustimes.org/services/20-qe-hospital-selly-oak-northfield-longbridge-red?date=2023-04-20&service=72405

First bus from Bromsgrove being 6:25ish am, with no previous service from the QE - so I'm guessing either empty from WB garage down the M5 to j4 to start at Bromsgrove or will YW operate that first journey?

How much more stressful is it though? You end up coming off late to break you get abusive customers health and safety becomes a hazard. So you're telling me that you'd rather drive the 11A/11C (notorious for late running, antisocial behaviour) than a tendered diamond route such as the 142/142A. I've noticed one of PN best and most politest drivers is now driving the 142/142A. Interesting maybe he had enough of the rude passengers in Birmingham

Yes of course it can be stressful and there certainly are easier ways to earn a living but there are lots of benefits if you don't take things personally. Do the job, enjoy the nice passengers (of who there are many), don't let the odd t*** get you down, if you're late, you're late (not a reason to get stressed - unless you're the only bus running on a tendered route of course!!!), go home, end of!

I've given my reasons for preferring busier routes. I do get your point about things like the 142 but what you have to remember is that would be lovely doing that as a one off, or even maybe once every fortnight. However, the thought of doing those sort of routes day in day out would be so boring and tedious. The positives of having few passengers would wear thin very quickly and after a couple of weeks doing that I'd be absolutely done with driving. Each to their own though.

Another point is that those routes like the 142 have predominantly regular passengers that you WILL pretty much see every time you drive. No problem of course if you don't have any issues with them, but very much a problem if you do encounter a problem with one of them. You can't escape seeing them. Busier routes may have more of these antisocial type of passenger but you have a much lower chance of encountering that same person regularly on that busier service when there are 20 buses on the route compared to the 1/2 buses on a tendered route.

Yeah because going up and down *insert trunk road here* isn't boring at all...

Talking rubbish as usual.

Rubbish? As usual no thought goes into your response at all. Just vitriol.

Said 'trunk road' route will see you interacting with probably 400-500 passengers on an average shift. You are busy, pretty much non-stop, the shift time (seems to) go far quicker than when you are driving routes seeing maybe 15-20 passengers an hour. It's common sense that time drags when you're not busy!

Worcester is no comparison to the West Mids obviously but having worked at other garages (like I do now!), including Sheffield, over a long period, what I am saying is true.

Driving round the posh suburbs of Solihull with few passengers on may be a great life achievement for you and full of personal fulfilment but to me it's bloody boring. I've done plenty of shifts in my driving time on tendered routes, where seeing hardly any passengers makes it so tedious. 

Fine if that appeals to you but I can't think of anything more boring than doing that for another 20 years (or until your company loses the contract at the next round of tenders and you end up back at Diamond driving these same routes!)

Even if diamond wages were slightly lower than nx wages I'd rather work for diamond given the type of customer diamond carries compared to nx and the routes it operates too. I'm sure most diamond drivers would agree with this.

A nice mellor working around Wednesbury or a horrible Dudley road corridor with non stop traffic and abusive passengers 🤔

Yeah but give it 2 weeks of doing that same route everyday with 3 passengers an hour on and you'll realise how mind numbingly boring that actually is.

Obviously suits some people doing that who don't want the hassle of lots of passengers, but the day and shift goes far faster if you are busy. And also, maybe 1 in every 500 passengers will be really problematic so it's not as bad as you make out.

Non-drivers/passengers never really understand this, you make one or two trips a day - if you see something bad happen then suddenly that must be the reality of every trip when of course it is not. And likewise, you say driving those minibuses round estates would be easy and trouble free? I guarantee those drivers get plenty of grief from car drivers who no doubt drive or park irresponsibly on said estates. 

I hope you do get to do the job one day, if you get through a couple of years you'll do it for life!

TFWM should at least give the West Midlands smaller operators a chance to operate larger routes though, for example Landflight who has great potential can operate a route which benefits them and TFWM

By larger routes I guess you mean those that make a commercial profit? If so, there is nothing stopping those smaller companies competing on those routes commercially too. However, very few do which probably tells you all you need to know about the long term potential for smaller operators running commercial routes.

Landflight operate tendered services which gives a level of financial security for a set contract period. Most smaller companies are in this position - commercial services offer too much financial risk for them. But you can't just decide to say 'Sorry NX you can't run the 50 anymore, let this smaller operator have a go' - not realistic at all!

I agree. You can't quote £12 an hour and say that's the going rate across the board. Personally think this 16% pay rise is ludicrous.

Do the job and see if you think the drivers don't deserve it.

You seem to spend most of the time on here bitching about buses running late round Hasbury and criticising drivers, when most of the time there is a valid reason for this.

I've been critical of the strike because it really wasn't needed to this extent but I will always back better driver pay. £15 an hour should be the basic wage for driving a bus when you consider the responsibility the driver has - keeping 70 passengers safe and not damaging a £300000 piece of kit.

It's not ludicrous at all.

I can see tickets going up by about £2-3 in September if they accept

I cannot see a short hop fare costing £3.50 or a day ticket £7 anytime soon!!!

The 16.2% rise equates to about £2.20 an hour per average driver (plus extra company NI contributions so say £2.70 cost per hour to the company). Therefore, the routes operated by the drivers will need to make that extra amount per hour to keep the status quo as now.

£2.70 is about 3 passengers an hour extra per bus they would need to cover this increase - it doesn't need massive fare increases to cover the shortfall. With ridership still down 15-20% compared to pre-COVID times, there can be reasonable hope that those extra passengers can be found by those 15-20% returning to bus travel (obviously providing there is a reliable service).

Obviously the more low margin routes may be more challenging to cover this required increase but hopefully the government will continue necessary funding for operators so that passenger increases in future years can then cover this.

Is it unreasonable to expect those striking drivers who plan to accept this deal on Saturday to turn up to work tomorrow as normal? I certainly don't think so. After all, they have a deal they are happy with so no need to continue striking.

This would go a long way to building bridges with passengers too as it would be good press to go back to work on mass tomorrow now they have a workable offer. Also, I'm sure this may go somewhat to rebuilding relations with both sides at NX with a bit of give or take.

I hope common sense prevails now and a decent service can be offered tomorrow and for the weekend and then back to normal on Monday.

With strikes like this, a lot of disruption is obviously to be expected. However, what is not acceptable is when this disruption is purposely targeted at vulnerable groups. If the story is true that pickets at Coventry really did prevent a school bus leaving the depot today to fulfil its essential duty, then I really hope their own kids suffer in the future because their learning is inconvenienced by other workers who they have got nothing to do with. It is just not fair to create that additional disruption to children, it is enough to withdraw your labour so few buses operate. It's a bloody disgrace to stop the few services that can operate from doing so.

I've worked alongside a fair few 'militant' union guys in various roles but not one of them would have justified such action against school buses not being able to run, no matter what the dispute was about. As a long term unite member, I cannot believe that the union would sanction such action and hopefully the more moderate drivers may well be persuaded to back a new pay deal because they too are disgusted by the action of a minority. Remember it just needs another 21% to vote for the deal. 

Don't forget that the poor service in Worcestershire was ultimately as a result of longstanding mismanagement and decline from the one large dominant operator!  Leaving the waste ground to be picked up by other operators.

Ultimately, you are comparing apples and pears as usual but one thing is certain. Each day that this strike goes on is a day closer to the 'increasingly poor' Worcestershire bus network!

Whilst the management does need to accept a certain level of blame for not being innovative or taking more commercial risks in Worcestershire, the principal blame lies with anti-bus county council there who have never really supported bus travel as a genuine alternative to the car - just look at the Worcester park and ride fiasco.

The councils of the West Midlands have been a lot more supportive of their local bus companies than Worcestershire ever was.