Diamond Bus - Unusual Workings

[iamwilljh92]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

[bususer12]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

A crowded service is better than no service.

[Niall]

20808 YX56 JUE - 16

Is it unusual to have  a Primo on the 16?

[Cedric]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

most 10 are full   maybe not always with standing passengers ,  but yesterday I was on the 9.39am to Kidderminster which was full seated and maxium standing. and it was a large dart. and  what time  was it today  you are talking about

[StourportSam]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

I'd like to think that Diamond are doing the best they can within market forces and the resources available at Kidderminster. I think largely they this is the case, for example the recent larger buses transferred to Kidderminster in the shape of 30637/8/9 and the SVV darts, but I don't think there is much excuse for YG02 DJZ to be on the 2/10 because that particular very small vehicle is more suited to the 4/5 in my opinion. Quite often there can be MPDs on the 3/X3 and a full size dart on the 4/5. I like Diamond and want them to succeed in Kidderminster but I think things like this can easily be avoided.

As others have said at least the service ran. This is a commercial service Diamond run with no support from WCC.

By coincidence I saw KU52 YJY (MPD) doing the 1750 run on the 10 this evening and it seemed well loaded but not overcrowded.

[the trainbasher]

30833 & 20538 both unusual workings on the 226 (30833 replacing 20538...)

[Ashley]

I think you mean Streetlite Nathan and yes it is unusual to get one on the 146

[PM]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

I'd like to think that Diamond are doing the best they can within market forces and the resources available at Kidderminster. I think largely they this is the case, for example the recent larger buses transferred to Kidderminster in the shape of 30637/8/9 and the SVV darts, but I don't think there is much excuse for YG02 DJZ to be on the 2/10 because that particular very small vehicle is more suited to the 4/5 in my opinion. Quite often there can be MPDs on the 3/X3 and a full size dart on the 4/5. I like Diamond and want them to succeed in Kidderminster but I think things like this can easily be avoided.

As others have said at least the service ran. This is a commercial service Diamond run with no support from WCC.

By coincidence I saw KU52 YJY (MPD) doing the 1750 run on the 10 this evening and it seemed well loaded but not overcrowded.

An argument for later services if the last 10 was well-loaded. By the sounds of it, some Diamond Kidderminster services are doing quite well but as has been said many times before, until network changes are implemented which ensure services aren't interworked it is virtually impossible for diamond to ensure the right size of vehicle is always allocated. It really is not their fault...

[Cedric]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

I'd like to think that Diamond are doing the best they can within market forces and the resources available at Kidderminster. I think largely they this is the case, for example the recent larger buses transferred to Kidderminster in the shape of 30637/8/9 and the SVV darts, but I don't think there is much excuse for YG02 DJZ to be on the 2/10 because that particular very small vehicle is more suited to the 4/5 in my opinion. Quite often there can be MPDs on the 3/X3 and a full size dart on the 4/5. I like Diamond and want them to succeed in Kidderminster but I think things like this can easily be avoided.

As others have said at least the service ran. This is a commercial service Diamond run with no support from WCC.

By coincidence I saw KU52 YJY (MPD) doing the 1750 run on the 10 this evening and it seemed well loaded but not overcrowded.

An argument for later services if the last 10 was well-loaded. By the sounds of it, some Diamond Kidderminster services are doing quite well but as has been said many times before, until network changes are implemented which ensure services aren't interworked it is virtually impossible for diamond to ensure the right size of vehicle is always allocated. It really is not their fault...

I agree with and as the 10 is my route  I use to get home and to town, the last one is not  well loaded everyday the 5.15 is more well loaded usually than  the one  will was talking about.  I think diamond are doing a great job compered to first 99.9% of the time . and so do quite a few people who I have spoken too . the only thing people say about is there could do with one a bit latter and a couple on a sunday  about every 2 hour between 10 and four when shops are open as we all have not got cars and with Kidderminster being a dying town any bit more trade would help  the shops  one other thing about diamond  it is good that management take the time to come on to this forum.

[winston]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

I'd like to think that Diamond are doing the best they can within market forces and the resources available at Kidderminster. I think largely they this is the case, for example the recent larger buses transferred to Kidderminster in the shape of 30637/8/9 and the SVV darts, but I don't think there is much excuse for YG02 DJZ to be on the 2/10 because that particular very small vehicle is more suited to the 4/5 in my opinion. Quite often there can be MPDs on the 3/X3 and a full size dart on the 4/5. I like Diamond and want them to succeed in Kidderminster but I think things like this can easily be avoided.

As others have said at least the service ran. This is a commercial service Diamond run with no support from WCC.

By coincidence I saw KU52 YJY (MPD) doing the 1750 run on the 10 this evening and it seemed well loaded but not overcrowded.

An argument for later services if the last 10 was well-loaded. By the sounds of it, some Diamond Kidderminster services are doing quite well but as has been said many times before, until network changes are implemented which ensure services aren't interworked it is virtually impossible for diamond to ensure the right size of vehicle is always allocated. It really is not their fault...

Diamond have owned Kidderminster for 12 months now, how long does it take to sort the operation out if the inherited interworking of routes result in unsuitable/inconsistent vehicle allocations that don't mach demands. As Simon has already said, Diamond have been pleasantly surprised by the Kidderminster business, so why not make improvements sooner rather than later that improve the quality of journeys and continue to support growth?

[PM]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

I'd like to think that Diamond are doing the best they can within market forces and the resources available at Kidderminster. I think largely they this is the case, for example the recent larger buses transferred to Kidderminster in the shape of 30637/8/9 and the SVV darts, but I don't think there is much excuse for YG02 DJZ to be on the 2/10 because that particular very small vehicle is more suited to the 4/5 in my opinion. Quite often there can be MPDs on the 3/X3 and a full size dart on the 4/5. I like Diamond and want them to succeed in Kidderminster but I think things like this can easily be avoided.

As others have said at least the service ran. This is a commercial service Diamond run with no support from WCC.

By coincidence I saw KU52 YJY (MPD) doing the 1750 run on the 10 this evening and it seemed well loaded but not overcrowded.

An argument for later services if the last 10 was well-loaded. By the sounds of it, some Diamond Kidderminster services are doing quite well but as has been said many times before, until network changes are implemented which ensure services aren't interworked it is virtually impossible for diamond to ensure the right size of vehicle is always allocated. It really is not their fault...

Diamond have owned Kidderminster for 12 months now, how long does it take to sort the operation out if the inherited interworking of routes result in unsuitable/inconsistent vehicle allocations that don't mach demands. As Simon has already said, Diamond have been pleasantly surprised by the Kidderminster business, so why not make improvements sooner rather than later that improve the quality of journeys and continue to support growth?

I agree but maybe the plan is a sudden network change which would have more of a "wow" factor as opposed to piecemeal changes here and there.

[winston]

Stood at the bus stop in Kidder today anyway (20847, YG02 DJZ) pulls up doing the number 10 (Offmore - Spennells) anyway loads of people got on and the bus was FULL people were standing what I'm saying is why do Diamond think it's appropriate to put a small/stupid bus like that on that route for futhermore I phoned up Tividale and made a complaint about this and more or less I got told "that was probably the only bus that was available" now I'm sorry but that is not good enough forgive me for saying t his but people have been saying about Diamond being like First is starting to ring true in my opinion

I'd like to think that Diamond are doing the best they can within market forces and the resources available at Kidderminster. I think largely they this is the case, for example the recent larger buses transferred to Kidderminster in the shape of 30637/8/9 and the SVV darts, but I don't think there is much excuse for YG02 DJZ to be on the 2/10 because that particular very small vehicle is more suited to the 4/5 in my opinion. Quite often there can be MPDs on the 3/X3 and a full size dart on the 4/5. I like Diamond and want them to succeed in Kidderminster but I think things like this can easily be avoided.

As others have said at least the service ran. This is a commercial service Diamond run with no support from WCC.

By coincidence I saw KU52 YJY (MPD) doing the 1750 run on the 10 this evening and it seemed well loaded but not overcrowded.

An argument for later services if the last 10 was well-loaded. By the sounds of it, some Diamond Kidderminster services are doing quite well but as has been said many times before, until network changes are implemented which ensure services aren't interworked it is virtually impossible for diamond to ensure the right size of vehicle is always allocated. It really is not their fault...

Diamond have owned Kidderminster for 12 months now, how long does it take to sort the operation out if the inherited interworking of routes result in unsuitable/inconsistent vehicle allocations that don't mach demands. As Simon has already said, Diamond have been pleasantly surprised by the Kidderminster business, so why not make improvements sooner rather than later that improve the quality of journeys and continue to support growth?

I agree but maybe the plan is a sudden network change which would have more of a "wow" factor as opposed to piecemeal changes here and there.

At this rate it will be 'wow' if anything at all changes....

[nitromatt1]

20543 on either the 002 or 202.

30455 also looking very odd on the 002.

[fleetline6477]

20808 YX56 JUE - 16

Is it unusual to have  a Primo on the 16?

It depends what time you saw it. A peak working on route 16 goes off onto 647 leaving Five Ways at 9.35 which can be a Primo or a Solo. Not sure if it goes back onto the 16 after the 647 finishes about 3.30.

[PM]

20808 YX56 JUE - 16

Is it unusual to have  a Primo on the 16?

It depends what time you saw it. A peak working on route 16 goes off onto 647 leaving Five Ways at 9.35 which can be a Primo or a Solo. Not sure if it goes back onto the 16 after the 647 finishes about 3.30.

I'm not sure but the 122 may have one of the LAC peak workings off the 50/16 as well...