stay local, pay local

[monkeyjoe]

OMG!!!!!!!!!! I'm in shock east Brum getting more attention wow!!!!!!!


60% of the way to 94 getting buses under 15 years old soon surely.

[Stu]

So you want a franchised service then?

No, what I meant was that it should be TfWM who carry out the consultation and then work with operators through the Bus Alliance to implement any changes. The Bus Alliance is a waste of time if one operator is going to make wholesale changes without other operators being involved.

We now have a situation where NX's 55 and 94 services don't follow the same route as Claribel's competing services, to name one example.

[winston]

No, what I meant was that it should be TfWM who carry out the consultation and then work with operators through the Bus Alliance to implement any changes. The Bus Alliance is a waste of time if one operator is going to make wholesale changes without other operators being involved.

We now have a situation where NX's 55 and 94 services don't follow the same route as Claribel's competing services, to name one example.

The East Birmingham changes have been implemented by NX purely for commercial reasons, nothing to do with TfWM & the Bus Alliance

[Tony]

No, what I meant was that it should be TfWM who carry out the consultation and then work with operators through the Bus Alliance to implement any changes. The Bus Alliance is a waste of time if one operator is going to make wholesale changes without other operators being involved.

We now have a situation where NX's 55 and 94 services don't follow the same route as Claribel's competing services, to name one example.

Isn't that the whole point of deregulation? There is no benefit whatsoever in two operators chasing each other down identical routes. The fact two operators are now providing different services should be of benefit. What are you saying? TfWM carry out consultation and if they concluded for example that the 94 missing out Cooks Lane benefitted more passengers then Claribels should have been forced to do the same as NXWM?

[PM]

Isn't that the whole point of deregulation? There is no benefit whatsoever in two operators chasing each other down identical routes. The fact two operators are now providing different services should be of benefit. What are you saying? TfWM carry out consultation and if they concluded for example that the 94 missing out Cooks Lane benefitted more passengers then Claribels should have been forced to do the same as NXWM?

There can be a benefit of operators operating similar/the same routes to provide competition and enhance service quality/price competitiveness. I do agree about operators being in charge of their own networks as opposed to the dangerous fantasy that bus franchising would improve services.

[Stu]

Isn't that the whole point of deregulation? There is no benefit whatsoever in two operators chasing each other down identical routes. The fact two operators are now providing different services should be of benefit. What are you saying? TfWM carry out consultation and if they concluded for example that the 94 missing out Cooks Lane benefitted more passengers then Claribels should have been forced to do the same as NXWM?

Not a case of forcing anyone to do anything. Claribels weren't involved in this consultation, as Steveminor has previously confirmed. If they had been, they would have at least had an opportunity to put their case forward, and they may well have agreed to change their route. If no mutual agreement could be reached, then one of the operators would have to register their route as a 'variant', eg 94A. That would then benefit passengers, as there would be some clarity for them, instead of having two operators running the same service number along different routes.

This is what I thought the whole point of the Bus Alliance was, to have operators working together in partnership for the benefit of passengers, without the need for services to be regulated.

[Kevin]

Not a case of forcing anyone to do anything. Claribels weren't involved in this consultation, as Steveminor has previously confirmed. If they had been, they would have at least had an opportunity to put their case forward, and they may well have agreed to change their route. If no mutual agreement could be reached, then one of the operators would have to register their route as a 'variant', eg 94A. That would then benefit passengers, as there would be some clarity for them, instead of having two operators running the same service number along different routes.

This is what I thought the whole point of the Bus Alliance was, to have operators working together in partnership for the benefit of passengers, without the need for services to be regulated.

Clarity for passengers should be paramount, but don't forget for a fair amount of time (only until quite recently in fact) Claribels and NX had different routes for the 94 around the Smiths Wood area, and still these days the Diamond 71 is different to the NX 71 round Castle Vale, but all still the same route numbers

[Kevin]

East Brum area doesn't include the Airport - that'll piss people off with the changes to the 97

[Steveminor]

If the consultation had have involved all operators im sure together we may have come up with some different solutions to tge network which may have benefited everyone better.
I do agree about routes that go a different way should have a different number i.e nx decide to go a different way to our 94 & use the same number as we do when i believe it should have used 94A & yet their 72 goes the same way as sunny travel 71e & uses a different number. Thats what desperately needs addressing.

[Trident 4194]

If the consultation had have involved all operators im sure together we may have come up with some different solutions to tge network which may have benefited everyone better.
I do agree about routes that go a different way should have a different number i.e nx decide to go a different way to our 94 & use the same number as we do when i believe it should have used 94A & yet their 72 goes the same way as sunny travel 71e & uses a different number. Thats what desperately needs addressing.

I agree the original route should keep old number new route should have a new number. Same with the nx 4H and diamond 4H. Good job diamond repainted therir b7rles blue

[Westy]

Who should have the rights to the particular number?

National Express as the longest established operator for the area, from Council /Corparation days?

The other operator, as they are staying on the original route?

What is TfWM's view, or don't they give a monkey's as usual?

[Steveminor]

Whoever changes the route should change the number

[Kevin]

Whoever changes the route should change the number

Agreed, especially in this sort of case when someone else still runs the original

[Isle of Stroma]

We could always ask Andy Street to sort it.

It would be nice for him to have something to justify his existence, considering he's done b#gger all else so far...

[dingding]

Be fun in the morning when the Rover Workers from North Chelmsley are trying to get to work sure they will be happy to get turfed off the bus at Chelmsley Wood to wait for a connection. These changes seem to be ill thought out and as said it would have been of more value to the travelling public include Claribels in the equation. Wonder what the reduction in PVR is?