Stagecoach in Birmingham

[Tony]

There's 4 tracking on the A9 now + 2 on the 169

The forth one just came from Rugby and should have done the 09:33 from Kingshurst so the 'twirlies' at Kingshurst have a long wait. The one bus that was on the 41 has just parked up at the hospital and not done the 08:55 departure like it should have done so currently no buses on the 41

[MasterPlan]

The 46 now showing on the TfWM app as stopping at Weoley Castle Square for some reason even though it doesn't come round here.

Not only that, 48 has been replaced with 46 at bus stop flags.

[BMJ1970]

Stagecoach have tweeted that there are several journeys on the 41 not running today due to "circumstances beyond their control".  Not the best for an hourly service.

[Coventrybususer95]

Stagecoach have tweeted that there are several journeys on the 41 not running today due to "circumstances beyond their control".  Not the best for an hourly service.

Makes you wonder if they have bitten off more then they can chew with the new tenders being ran from rugby

[metrocity]

Stagecoach have tweeted that there are several journeys on the 41 not running today due to "circumstances beyond their control".  Not the best for an hourly service.

At least the Bus Service 'Improvement' Plan (BSIP) funding should last abit longer...

[Ronnoc]

One of the buses was missing a panel on its nearside behind the front wheel, I think it was 36425. 

[Stu]

I hope it is bad tracking, but on both Bustimes and Stagecoach's own tracker there's currently only 1 bus on the 41, 2 on the 46 and 3 on the A9

There was nothing tracking on the 71 yesterday when I checked.

However looking now at the history, it shows 36950 as operating half the journeys, though there is no map data available, so presumably this vehicle is not reporting location data:
https://bustimes.org/vehicles/scnh-36950?date=2023-01-08

I don't live on or use the route, so I don't know if there was actually another vehicle out which wasn't tracking at all.

36950 has operated journeys on the A9 today.


I know it's still early days, and that some of these tenders were awarded at short notice, but surely operators should not be bidding on contracts that they don't have the resources to operate.

It is pretty poor on Stagecoach's part that less than a week into operating these new contracts, they are missing out journeys already due to driver shortages or "circumstances beyond our control". And yes, I know these services require subsidy because they are not commercially viable due to low patronage, but still, its not leaving a good impression on the few people who do indeed rely on these services.

On Saturday afternoon, I was planning on travelling to Solihull, and I thought I'd give the 169 a try, as it is actually the route that stops closest to my home, though when it was the 69 it only ran about four times a day and was finished before 3pm so was little use to me. Before leaving the house, I checked the timetable, and then found out that journey wasn't running. Well, I wasn't going to sit around for another hour to wait for the next one, so I walked down Trittiford Road to get the 76 instead (as I would normally do if going into Shirley or Solihull for anything). So before I even stepped on board this service for the first time, I didn't have a very good first impression.

I hope it is the case that Stagecoach receive a pro-rata deduction from the subsidy paid to them by TfWM for the journeys they fail to operate, because I would be angry if taxpayers money is being given to big private companies like Stagecoach who fail to provide the service they're being funded to operate.

[metrocity]

There was nothing tracking on the 71 yesterday when I checked.

However looking now at the history, it shows 36950 as operating half the journeys, though there is no map data available, so presumably this vehicle is not reporting location data:
https://bustimes.org/vehicles/scnh-36950?date=2023-01-08

I don't live on or use the route, so I don't know if there was actually another vehicle out which wasn't tracking at all.

36950 has operated journeys on the A9 today.


I know it's still early days, and that some of these tenders were awarded at short notice, but surely operators should not be bidding on contracts that they don't have the resources to operate.

It is pretty poor on Stagecoach's part that less than a week into operating these new contracts, they are missing out journeys already due to driver shortages or "circumstances beyond our control". And yes, I know these services require subsidy because they are not commercially viable due to low patronage, but still, its not leaving a good impression on the few people who do indeed rely on these services.

On Saturday afternoon, I was planning on travelling to Solihull, and I thought I'd give the 169 a try, as it is actually the route that stops closest to my home, though when it was the 69 it only ran about four times a day and was finished before 3pm so was little use to me. Before leaving the house, I checked the timetable, and then found out that journey wasn't running. Well, I wasn't going to sit around for another hour to wait for the next one, so I walked down Trittiford Road to get the 76 instead (as I would normally do if going into Shirley or Solihull for anything). So before I even stepped on board this service for the first time, I didn't have a very good first impression.

I hope it is the case that Stagecoach receive a pro-rata deduction from the subsidy paid to them by TfWM for the journeys they fail to operate, because I would be angry if taxpayers money is being given to big private companies like Stagecoach who fail to provide the service they're being funded to operate.

TFWM get automated reporting - so they won't be paid for journeys not operating.

What is more concerning is the long term damage they are doing to the passenger volumes on these services. There will be passengers lost to other modes of transport on a daily basis

[Tony]

TFWM get automated reporting - so they won't be paid for journeys not operating.

What is more concerning is the long term damage they are doing to the passenger volumes on these services. There will be passengers lost to other modes of transport on a daily basis

Yes, If the tracking is correct then there was a 6 hour gap in services on the 41. One of my colleagues son was waiting for the 46 this morning and there was definitely two consecutive buses missing on there creating a 90 minute gap in the service

[Secondary trigger 28]

Does anyone know how long these  tender routes  are contracted for?

[Secondary trigger 28]

Yes, If the tracking is correct then there was a 6 hour gap in services on the 41. One of my colleagues son was waiting for the 46 this morning and there was definitely two consecutive buses missing on there creating a 90 minute gap in the service

Last week this was the case on the A9.

[Rachvince53]

Does anyone know how long these  tender routes  are contracted for?

Normally 3 to 5 years but I'm sure someone has a definitive answer. 

[metrocity]

Last week this was the case on the A9.

Same today with the A9. Gaps of an hour plus. It's a busy service but won't be for much longer

[Justin Tyme]

I had rides on the 46 and 169 today.  One journey was on time, the other two were 5-10 mins late.  I could see that there were gaps on the 46 and the A9 this morning, and Enviro 200 36952 travelled from Rugby to take up service on the 41 from QE Hospital at 1200.

I asked drivers how they were getting on after a week, and they said they knew the routes but drivers were not always turning up for work.  That can make them late getting back to base at the end of a shift if a bus they rely on to return to Rugby is not running.  There is a mix of agency and "native" Rugby depot drivers.

Not surprisingly loadings were low - just six passengers altogether on a lunchtime 46 from the QE to Kings Heath.

[Stu]

TFWM get automated reporting - so they won't be paid for journeys not operating.

What is more concerning is the long term damage they are doing to the passenger volumes on these services. There will be passengers lost to other modes of transport on a daily basis

Exactly. Operators awarded these contracts should be doing what they can to increase passenger volumes, and thus increase their revenues, which would make those services more viable and not reliant on subsidies.

Losing the few existing passengers these routes currently attract just ends up making them even more unviable.