Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 11:55 28 Mar 2024
* Manhunt after stabbing in front of train passengers
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1988)
Woman found murdered on Orpington to London train (*)

Train RunningCancelled
10:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
10:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
10:41 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
11:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
11:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
11:23 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
11:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
11:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
12:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
13:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
06:00 London Paddington to Penzance
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:45 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
11:12 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:12 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
Delayed
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
08:48 London Paddington to Swansea
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
09:51 Warminster to Gloucester
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 12:01:26 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[161] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[91] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[62] Return of the BRUTE?
[53] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[49] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[38] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: First bus changes from 28th July along TransWilts corridor  (Read 49163 times)
Scott
Full Member
***
Posts: 76


First S&A Expert


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2013, 01:07:56 »

I'm willing to listen on the 30 as - whilst I've been to Frome a few times - I've only actually used the 30 itself once, and then fairly late in the day. The high ENCTS (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) patronage rate was cited as a reason for the withdrawal, especially with things like BSOG (Bus Service Operators Grant ) being reduced, and to compress the demand into five days instead of six makes a lot of commercial sense.

Truth be told though, I think the 30's days (in First colours at least) are numbered.

The same reason was given for the 174 being withdrawn, and in tandem with the 161 reduction, this takes a vehicle of the road, which by extension means one less Step Dart to worry about - although, that said, I have often wondered why they even bothered with the 174 given it basically loops around the far more attractive 173 anyway.

To think Frome to Shepton ran on Sundays not so long ago...
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 01:14:08 by Scott » Logged

Click here for advice on bus travel or here for bus terminology.

N.B.: I am not (yet) an official employee of First Group.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2013, 15:02:29 »

... and to compress the demand into five days instead of six makes a lot of commercial sense.

Hmmm ... If you have (say) 600 journeys made on a bus route over six days, but it has 2400 seats during that period, I don't thing you're going to be able to retain the 600 journeys by reducing the seats to 2000 and cutting out operations on one day.   

Why not go further - reduce the service to Monday, Friday and Saturday - and you've then just got 1200 seats.  But I expect you would be lucky to have 400 passengers.   Looks like social engineering / trying to change people's habits at the altar of commerce and profit  Wink
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Sion Bretton
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 151



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2013, 21:03:53 »

Service 234

Seems to be leaving Chippenham later.

The services from Trowbridge will now go to Leeks (getting nearer to Chippenham). But leave at 20.15 not 20.25 and the last service to Melksham from Trowbridge leaves later ie 23.40 not 23.35 and goes to Leeks as well.
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2013, 00:22:29 »

Was the Leekes extension a particular aspiration for the Melksham folks?
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2013, 05:33:55 »

Was the Leekes extension a particular aspiration for the Melksham folks?

Not to my knowledge ... but the evening bus has (unadvertised) carried on north of the Market Place tp turn around anyway.  It's probably gone to Lidl and turned around there.

Service 234

Seems to be leaving Chippenham later.

The services from Trowbridge will now go to Leeks (getting nearer to Chippenham). But leave at 20.15 not 20.25 and the last service to Melksham from Trowbridge leaves later ie 23.40 not 23.35 and goes to Leeks as well.

The 10 minutes earlier from Trowbridge kills the peak connection from Waterloo to Melksham ....


5. You could make for Waterloo.  A ticket to Trowbridge costs 37.60 on the 17:50, change at Salisbury, and timetabled to reach Trowbridge at 20:16.   There's a Trowbridge to Melksham bus at 20:25.  Of course, it doesn't actually call at the station, but if you know where it runs, there's a bus stop about 3 minutes jog away that it goes past.   And that was the option I chose.


And that's now minus one minute  Undecided

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2013, 01:53:51 »

One of the most interesting aspects of the forthcoming First Bus 231/232 & 271/272 changes is that rather than competing directly through Corsham and Melksham, First and Faresaver will be operating distinctly different routings on these services through both towns from 28th July.

Despite this though, competition will still be fierce between First and Faresaver on point-to-point journeys such as Bath-Chippenham, Bath-Corsham and Corsham-Chippenham on these routes. However, in a fascinating twist, whereas Faresaver had previously gained quite a reputation for running their buses a few minutes ahead of First's, the forthcoming changes turn the tables so that First's 231's will be a few minutes ahead of Faresaver's X31's in both directions.

It's not just on the Bath-Chippenham corridor that this will be the case either - First have retimed their 234's between Chippenham-Melksham-Trowbridge to run a few minutes earlier than Faresaver's X34's.

Add to this the fact that the new daytime 272 is timed to leave the centre of Melksham a few minutes earlier than the Melksham Metro 14 service for the journey round Melksham Forest, and a cynic could be forgiven for thinking that a pattern may be emerging here...

Is it a possibility that the 14 could be reduced to hourly as follows? (mins past each hour):

Market Place 01

Sainsburys 03

Asda 12

Addison Road 16

Asda 35

Sainsburys 40

Melksham Forest Chapel 48

Queensway 54

Hospital 00

Market Place 01

This would dovetail with the 272 route to provide a near-even half-hourly service (07 & 40 mins past each hour) from the centre of Melksham round the Forest area. On a positive note, this would open the door for grahame's idea:

f) With First going though The Forest every hour, I hope that it's syncronised with the town bus (route 14) also going through The Forest. Currently that happens every 30 minutes. I can envisage 14 becoming hourly, 272 being the other half hour (the capacity will be there on the bus), and released resource on 14 allowing for a new service 15 to run an outer loop via the new housing ... just waiting for bus stops to be put in by developers, I understand.  Should have been last month ...

Finally, I note that First have been trialling Optare Midibuses on the 272, perhaps in anticipation of speed humps and parking issues along the Melksham Forest section of route.

PS - This would be someones cue to tell me not to worry as Faresaver will re-register their buses to run a few minutes ahead of First's, and thus natural order will be restored!
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
thetrout
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2612



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2013, 22:33:31 »

The 161 is going down to two-hourly, but only between Shepton Mallet and Frome. The simple problem is that no-one uses it out in the Mendip wilds - the hospital is all very well but it's not exactly far from other routes, and there is nothing really important to cover. And no-one uses the 30 either from what I've seen - I did the whole loop a couple of months ago and we picked up about five passengers in total.

I quite agree on that one for some of the journeys. It probably doesn't help that the service takes the very scenic route. Frome - Shepton Mallet could be done in just under 30 minutes. However with the routing via Stoke St Michael, Cranmore and Doulting the journey takes nearly an hour. That makes it a very unattractive service for some. IMHO (in my humble opinion) it is also an unattractive service for me based on the time it takes, but I'd rather spend an hour getting somewhere than not be able to get there at all.

That being said the fact that it runs via Stoke St Michael is very useful as I occasionally catch the bus there. It also travels to Nunney Catch Service Station which could actually still be served if you turned the bus around in the lorry park. That's useful as it prevents Senior Trouts having to drive all the way to Frome to collect me. There used to be 2 bus services a week where they live. There are now NONE Angry



I am also leaning towards Lee's comments. The 30 at certain times of the day is a well patronised service. Except as you rightly say, mostly ENCTS (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) Card Holders. I'm afraid I am going to have to put my hand up and admit that I am probably responsible for a few journeys on that route.

With regards to my comments about Frome Hospital. Yes you're right that other services do stop nearby as I said in my OP (Original Poster / topic starter). But can I just make the obvious point (Please forgive me if this sounds really patronising, It's not at all) that if you're going to the Medical Centre... The chances are that you do not want to be there and/or are unwell. A walk to the medical centre perhaps in the rain or with an unpleasant ailment might be the difference between a Taxi or taking the bus and walking the rest of the way.

On a personal rant, as it's situations like this that affect me (And of course with the 2006 FGW (First Great Western) decision, our Forum Hosts business as well) I am rather irritated that the Government have given me an ENCTS Pass and entitlement to a Disabled Railcard. That is all very well and good IF and it's a big if, you have the buses/trains to use them on.

I'm tempted to write to my MP (Member of Parliament) to detail how this situation with public transport personally affects me and also mention that the Government are looking to reduce Disability Benefits for people not in work. Then explain that if these vital services are withdrawn I go bust! I expect I would be told to diversify. It's a real catch 22 for me on this one. I'm keeping my eyes open with interest... Lips sealed Undecided Embarrassed
Logged

Grin Grin Grin Grin
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2013, 01:45:31 »

Reading thetrout^s comments, I am reminded of Scott^s earlier remarks about the impending withdrawal of the 174 Wells city service being down to mostly OAPs using the service. What is interesting is I^ve now talked to a regular Wells bus user, who informs me that the Churchill Road OAPs are really annoyed at the loss of the service, and although it may seem that the 173 is relatively close by to our eyes, the fact that they would have to walk further to catch it means that several wont.

As far as the 161 goes, although I have yet to see an ^official^ forthcoming timetable, I have studied the version that is online at Traveline. If it is correct (and I am very happy for someone to step in here and say it isn^t) then it really doesn^t look good at all for those travelling beyond Shepton towards Frome.

Currently, the first 161 of the day from Wells/Shepton arrives in Frome at around 0830, with another arrival from Nunney getting into Frome at around 0910, which taken together caters adequately for the needs of those who have, for varying reasons, a need to arrive in Frome during the traditional ^travel to work^ period. The service then generally runs at the rate of one bus per hour in both directions until close of service in the early evening.

However, if Traveline are correct, then the first weekday bus from Wells/Shepton will not arrive in Frome until after 10am. Also, while the frequency can be described as "generally" 2-hourly, there is a 3-hour gap in the afternoon, and the number of journeys through to Frome in each direction has been halved from 10 a day to 5.

Given the comparison with the way this service has been timetabled and funded in the recent past, it really does look as if both the bus company and the local authority have given up on retaining the 161 as a viable service beyond Shepton towards Frome. I do wonder what kind of message that sends out to others who may be considering the future of unprofitable, yet socially necessary and strategic bus services elsewhere.

By the way, I have seen an ^official^ forthcoming timetable for the 267 service, and you will doubtless be surprised to hear that First have timetabled their services to be a few minutes ahead of Faresaver^s in both directions on that route as well^
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
Scott
Full Member
***
Posts: 76


First S&A Expert


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2013, 02:10:39 »

The 161 certainly should be correct - I've checked it against the VOSA registration and there were no errors with the core service (only the school journey).

As for the 174, unfortunately it's part of a cost-cutting measure. Two buses can be used to do either Wells to Frome two-hourly with the 174 intact or the proposed plan of running hourly buses to Shepton - and in my opinion they have made the right choice.
Logged

Click here for advice on bus travel or here for bus terminology.

N.B.: I am not (yet) an official employee of First Group.
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2013, 11:46:11 »

Scott - Do you think that removing morning "travel to work" time journey opportunities on the 161 into Frome was also the right choice, and, in your opinion, were there any options First could have explored in order to retain them?
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
thetrout
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2612



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2013, 23:59:35 »

By the way, I have seen an ^official^ forthcoming timetable for the 267 service, and you will doubtless be surprised to hear that First have timetabled their services to be a few minutes ahead of Faresaver^s in both directions on that route as well^

Right. So we had a fairly well timetabled service from Frome Market Place at XX:21 (Faresaver) and XX:49 (First) running to Bath, which has worked very well for me and others for the past year or so it's been like that.

Now they are going back to the XX:15 and XX:21 trick again??!!! WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can someone please explain to me the logic of 2 buses to Bath every hour leaving within 10 minutes of each other. If someone comes back to me to say it's a commercial decision then 1) I won't be surprised and 2) Will just have to scream in frustration.

I'm really starting to think First are doing what makes sense for themselves without taking into account things from a customer aspect.

Reading thetrout^s comments, I am reminded of Scott^s earlier remarks about the impending withdrawal of the 174 Wells city service being down to mostly OAPs using the service. What is interesting is I^ve now talked to a regular Wells bus user, who informs me that the Churchill Road OAPs are really annoyed at the loss of the service, and although it may seem that the 173 is relatively close by to our eyes, the fact that they would have to walk further to catch it means that several wont.

My emphasis in bold. This was exactly what I was trying to say, you've just summed it up better for me Wink Grin Personally I would walk the extra distance, however if it was heavy raining or my ailment was particularly unpleasant. I would be calling a Taxi and be around ^5 worse off.

Scott - Do you think that removing morning "travel to work" time journey opportunities on the 161 into Frome was also the right choice, and, in your opinion, were there any options First could have explored in order to retain them?

Sorry Scott. I don't want to appear like we are ganging up on you here. But I also have to agree that removing a commutable journey for people who don't have to access their own vehicles is a ridiculous suggestion let alone a decision. I personally know young people who would be able to accept jobs in Shepton Mallet but cannot based on the current prices of the fares on the 161. Now the services are reduced by 50% It's made those prospects even worse. I assume that we'll also see a 50% reduction in fares?? I thought not. Playing Devils Advocate here, but I rather suspect they'll increase at some point.

Can someone also explain to me how a company can potentially charge MORE for a service which will soon operate 50% less than the previous Timetables. I already know the answer. I don't like it.
Logged

Grin Grin Grin Grin
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2013, 09:18:34 »

Right. So we had a fairly well timetabled service from Frome Market Place at XX:21 (Faresaver) and XX:49 (First) running to Bath, which has worked very well for me and others for the past year or so it's been like that.

Now they are going back to the XX:15 and XX:21 trick again??!!! WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can someone please explain to me the logic of 2 buses to Bath every hour leaving within 10 minutes of each other. If someone comes back to me to say it's a commercial decision then 1) I won't be surprised and 2) Will just have to scream in frustration.



I spent an hour on the phone with a very senior member of a bus company - not First, and not in B&NES / Somerset.  I'll attempt to paraphrase his explanation, and put some figures on it.

Let's take a service at :15 (Company A) and :45 (Company B), each carrying 25 passenger, and competing commercially with each other.

If company "A" moves their bus from :15 to :40, some jouneys will be lost to car and the total number of passengers will drop - let's say from 50 to 40.   However, many passengers will simply get on the first bus that comes along (especially those with passes to use on either operator), so operator "A" may see his passenger count increase from 25 to 30 passengers, but operator "B" will see a huge fall - from 25 down to 10.

That's a snapshot ... there will be a minority of people who will use operator "B" for a period as a matter or principle, as operator "A" appears to have  put profit above community service. And there's nothing to stop operator "A" mving his service from :45 to :35 six weeks later (except that it may effect interworking with other routes).

Now - I don't know whether that is the explanantion, Mr Trout ... it could also be that the :49 to :15 move allows interaction with another linked route (if we're looking at 267, it's said to interact with 234 / buses transferring between routes at Frome?) so it may be that the new :15 timing allows the operator to save a vehicle and keep the route running as a commercial venture.

Should both explanations be correct, then there's a very strong reason for moving the service to the new time.   You're carrying more passengers, with one vehicle less on the road.   Can't be bad for your company, can it?  And from the customer's viewpoint, surely services at :40 and :45 are better than a single service at just :45, which would be the effect if company "A" withdrew from the route because it wasn't making them enough profit?
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2013, 10:07:23 »

Surely that kind of "timetabling instability" has been known since buses were first introduced. So quite early in the 20th century the need for regulation, to referee timetabling and make route sharing work, was recognised.

I have a vague recollection that transport commissioners were originally introduced mainly for that purpose. Then, somehow, in the more recent privatisations (post 1980) somehow that function got written out of their remit. Or is that my imagination?
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2013, 12:41:26 »

Now - I don't know whether that is the explanantion, Mr Trout ... it could also be that the :49 to :15 move allows interaction with another linked route (if we're looking at 267, it's said to interact with 234 / buses transferring between routes at Frome?) so it may be that the new :15 timing allows the operator to save a vehicle and keep the route running as a commercial venture.

Should both explanations be correct, then there's a very strong reason for moving the service to the new time.   You're carrying more passengers, with one vehicle less on the road.   Can't be bad for your company, can it?  And from the customer's viewpoint, surely services at :40 and :45 are better than a single service at just :45, which would be the effect if company "A" withdrew from the route because it wasn't making them enough profit?

To explain fully for members reading this, currently the 267 terminates at Frome Sainsburys, and the 234 terminates at Frome Railway Station. However, from the end of July, the 234 will withdraw from the railway station, and also terminate at Sainsburys. The two services will then interwork with eachother during weekday daytimes.

My analysis of the timetables suggests that interworking in itself will not save a vehicle in the way grahame suggests. The benefits for doing so look to be mainly twofold - firstly to improve reliability on both routes by increasing turnaround time at both Chippenham and Frome, and secondly to ensure a more consistent, nearer to hourly spread throughout the day on the 234 in both directions through to the end of the evening peak, spin off benefits including a later last bus from Frome at 1730, and the moving of the 1912 departure from Chippenham to 1920, the benefits of which grahame explains here.

There Is also an earlier morning arrival on the 267 into Frome at 0811, ironically granting the benefits of  ^travel to work^ time arrival into Frome that will be taken away from those arriving from the Wells/Shepton direction on the 161 from the same date^this is tempered somewhat though by the creation of a 1hr 15 minute gap in evening peak First Bus 267 services from Frome-Bath between 1705-1820 (currently the gap is 40 minutes between 1736-1816).

It is also worth noting (as I did earlier in this topic) that as well as First running their 267 services a few minutes ahead of Faresaver^s in both directions, First have retimed their 234's between Chippenham-Melksham-Trowbridge to run a few minutes earlier than Faresaver's X34's as well.

There is also an outside chance that this interworking may also create opportunities for resource efficiencies at the Bath end. Personally I doubt it, given the increased turnaround time at Chippenham and Frome, but Scott may be in a position to comment further on that side of things.

Surely that kind of "timetabling instability" has been known since buses were first introduced. So quite early in the 20th century the need for regulation, to referee timetabling and make route sharing work, was recognised.

I have a vague recollection that transport commissioners were originally introduced mainly for that purpose. Then, somehow, in the more recent privatisations (post 1980) somehow that function got written out of their remit. Or is that my imagination?

That^s a fair point, and one that grahame alluded to in a post on a similar topic:

... but it seems that there is a lack of will alongside the lack of legal power by local authorities to prioritise good public transport ...

First are only doing what a responsible shareholder-beholden company must do.

If you want to foresee the future, look at the demographics: young people are abandoning the car and taking to public transport.

I think you're spot on, Red Squirrel.   Trainer - I see ... a tremendous frustration at times on the part of passenger group and responsible / caring local authority teams (and some of them are responsible and caring). Resources that could be used better - more income generated from more customers being served at less cost.  With a big problem being the gap between commercial and subsidised services.  If a route's commercial, then multiple opeartors run on it and each looks after their shareholder's interests first and foremost - and if that means running at the most popular time just like their competitors do, or 5 minues ahead, so be it.

In a truely regulated market - with contracts let to run bus services and the commercial companies being managers (London and Northere Ireland?), we could take all the buses on the 234, x34, 235, X96 and Zigzag routes - Chippenham to Frome and via some of the villages - that's probably around 10 buses / 120 driver shifts per week, and come up with something joined up. 

As it is, 234 and x34 leave Chippenham station for the first time at around 15:18 and 15:22 in the afternoon, in pairs for the next 3 hours, just as the 19:15 train arrives and at 22:20 or so.  Yes - the four "pairs" are the busiest times, but the buses are more than half empty.

How much better to cover 8 different times ... 15:22 and hourly to 18:22 for sure, 20:22, 22:22 ... and how about 08:22, 10:22, 12:22 and 14:22?  I know it's not that simple - you can't set bus routes around a single stop, but with a bit of manoevering around, you could end up with 07:22, hourly to 19:22, 21:22 and 23:22.    3 buses an hour along the corridor (same number as currently on x34 and 234 alone) but one service taking in the villages between Chippenham and Melksham, and another taking in the villages between Melksham and Trowbridge, thus covering Zigzag, 235 and X96 routes ... using half of the vehicles they currently have on them, yet adding villages to Chippenham Station as a journey opportunity, adding Bradford-on-Avon to Melksham as a usable service (last but currently 14:01!) etc ...

grahame is clearly setting out on one side his own view, and the other a devils advocate view. Side by side though, they do rather usefully set out the terms of the debate.
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
Scott
Full Member
***
Posts: 76


First S&A Expert


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2013, 01:05:35 »

Sorry for the slow response - I've been ill (and distracted by Wimbledon admittedly)...

The problem the 161 has is that it links three locations that, while serving as local "heads of the community", are actually quite remote. This means that there is very little in terms intermediate traffic between them and more from the villages dotted along the route. But with no sizeable destinations en route other than the three "heads", or two if Wells and Shepton are counted as one, then there just isn't the traffic to justify a proper service. The same can be said for commuter journeys into Wells and Frome - from a commercial perspective, the commuting traffic is too small to accommodate for the most part, and where it isn't other alternatives already exist (in Frome for instance).

This may be complete nonsense, but this is how I see the change.

Could First have done something different? At the two ends of the route, yes, courtesy of the facilities available. Is it worth it, relative to the potential impacts that may be seen on other routes (especially in Frome)? Sadly not. Do I think this was the right move? I'm on the fence: If the vehicle availability exists, I think they've made a mistake; if not, then I think making the extra provision would be a mistake.

Of course, if Somerset CC provided funding for more journeys...

...no, wait, this is Somerset we're talking about. They're probably unhappy with subsidising the two-hourly service!

The key point here is that First wanted to reduce the mileage on the 161 (and the 174 I suppose) and the new operation allows one bus to be removed from the timetable. Whether this is the right social decision is irrelevant from First's perspective - we all know that they are less open to social needs than other operators.

Regarding resource efficiency on the 267, my experience suggests that buses run to the Depot and back, partly to top up on fuel ^ Frome have no fuelling or maintenance facilities to my knowledge.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 01:55:13 by Scott » Logged

Click here for advice on bus travel or here for bus terminology.

N.B.: I am not (yet) an official employee of First Group.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page