Well, if that's done with, I might take up the thread and leave a poser of my own, if no-one objects. However, I have a friend from Leeds coming to visit tomorrow and I will be in Swansea on Monday (taking advantage of an offer First made me ), so I may not be able to respond until Tuesday.

What links the previous holder of the title "Smallest City on Earth to have its own Metro system" with the current holder?

The answer "both held the title" and similar responses will be ignored. Answers as vague as "same continent" will also be overlooked.

I thought Munich was 1971? Just in time for its Olympics.

This would suggest that there may well be two or more. I am going to suggest Beijing as another likely contender.

Not the best claim, if I'm honest. I have heard nothing to suggest that this was ever considered a possibility, but even if I'm wrong and it was looked into the article still shows that the Health Park dont understand their service at all. There is no case for an hourly 11 any more as we have discussed - and the 162 doesn't even run any more.

A more sensible option would be to divert the 30, since it serves the largest portion of the town - but that would be marginal on time.

I had one on a Voyager in the Sandwell & Dudley area a couple of years ago where two young Indian-descent women were discussing their respective driving tests. One of the two revealed that she failed because she stated in her Theory Test that all zebra crossings had traffic lights...

How do they terminate at CPM^» (Chippenham - next trains)?

Arr, there be another forum (), and dis 'ere kid be da man when it comes ta maps.

Or, in English, Welcome Dan. How's Droitwich these days?

I've never known an operator to reveal its new timetables before explaining changes. How na^ve. It is just as well that the most important thing (Taunton) has been explained.

People in Bath should note that Services 4 and 5 are also receiving new timetable leaflets, but are not actually changing. This is to remove the last two routes without leaflets from the Bath timetable book, allowing its final withdrawal.

How long before the X31 is brought forward ten minutes?

...oh, wait a minute, guess which route has since been registered as changing on September 1st?

With regards to Traveline, I must insist that those who use the 231/232 ignore the new timetable until further notice. It is so inaccurate that I was tempted to burn the paper copy I was given! In short, the weekday and Saturday services into Bath are the wrong way round, roughly 100 individual timings are incorrect, and the Sunday and Public Holiday service is missing completely.

I will notify you all when this has been rectified.

What Lee said - the forthcoming timetables are exactly as shown in the current list. This is most obvious in Taunton, which is receiving a new town network with routes numbered 1 to 7 (see here).

The 267 timetable will be roughly the following (selected Timing Points only):


The Sunday service is also changing (when did that last happen ?) but will still see four full-length journeys a day.

What came first here - First deciding to run commercially or the 24 being withdrawn? I ind it somewhat unlikely that First would just casually jump in without there being at least a hint of the 24 being in danger.

I don't know if I agree with "one year", but an experiment this most definitely is. And it will be so far from a depot (or even an outstation) that any problems at the Salisbury end will be difficult to overcome without W&D's help.

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.

So long as the journey is registered, the operator is paid. Printing of tickets is entirely down to the company in question - some insist on knowing the exact journey being made (which is a bit daft), whereas some don't print at all. Personally I think it's a waste of paper.

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.

Ah yes, of course. I should ave had that - I've been on Merseyrail enough. I do recall thinking how strange it is that they say HERE when - half the time - the train is still not at the platform! This is especially true on the Wirral Line I believe, where there is no train present for probably more than half the time the indicators suggest! Such is the frequency at Central and others, where there are 14tph and intervals of five or less...