MidlandRed.net

TimBrown wrote: ↑

04:50 Tuesday 20th September 2016

WR1st wrote: ↑

20:17 Monday 19th September 2016

TimBrown should be a big part of the Crowngate Midland Red operations. I wouldn't mind betting you are the only person who has noticed this piss poor departure problem even though we currently have more chiefs than indians

Thanks for your kind comments, but I think these should be addresses to Mr DD12, I merely replied to his post with a few observations from the point of view of a long retired ex-Worcester bus driver.

Correct TimBrown having reread the thread it is DD12 I should be commending. Apologies.

I briefly called in the Commercial Office earlier in the week and mentioned the problems that have been reported here. They had already read the post and said that on both the days the 32 was missing there were traffic problems due to the closed motorway and/or unscheduled emergency roadworks, which resulted in the bus not being able to get back from Malvern. They also said they were monitoring it to see if there were any additional problems which could cause it to be delayed.

Called in again today and had a rather odd conversation...

While monitoring they have noticed buses running dead back to Worcester via Great Malvern after terminating at Link Top Shelter, and they had concluded this was causing unnecessary delayes. I pointed out that this is the only way they can go, only to be told we should be turning right in Leigh Sinton road (like the Service 44A), dropping off there, and then running dead to Worcester via Leigh Sinton and Bransford.

This was news to me as we have always dropped off after the Service 365 at Link Top Shelter, and before they were withdrawn we would then work a Service 364 back to Worcester from there. I was then told that the recommended route for all vehicles running dead between Worcester and Dysons or Malvern Vale is to run via Leigh Sinton...

Another case of poor communication at First as nobody has ever told me this in the 20+ years I've been there! I've often thought about going that way as I suspected it may be quicker to avoid Malvern Link when the traffic is bad, but I never have because there would be a lot of explaining to do if things went wrong.

Anyway, I will be running this service tomorrow and they have asked me to run via Leigh Sinton and report back on any problems. They will also update the running cards to recommend buses go that way while not-in-service.

Hopefully, by running the "correct" way the bus will be back in Crowngate in good time for the 32.

Thanks very much for that, Adam.
Today there were only 4 forlorn passengers wanting to catch the 17.05 into town, and they only had to wait 40 mins today !

However, yesterday, the 32 from Kempsey was running late, and actually left St.Peters , Broomhall at 17.05 !
Unfortunately, sod's law was in play, because it got to the stop at St.Mark's church at 17.11, and when I went back the other way a few minutes later, an elderly couple had arrived at the stop -
the departure time shown on the WCC timetable board (for the REAL 17.05 from St.Peters) is 17.14 from the St.Marks stop, so people have possibly been missing it anyway !
I gave the couple a lift into town, and then got stuck in a traffic jam (serves me right for "playing buses" ! )

It's very ironic to me that one of the problems has been getting a bus back from a school duty in time, because I am very keen to see Double Deckers being utilised after schools to support the late afternoon network - frequency and reliability.
My impression is that late afternoon in Worcester, is when the worst jams happen most often.

My "enthusiast's mini-survey" of my local service is beginning to suggest to me that some "easy" timetable adjustments (32/333/382) might be possible.
but of course I don't have knowledge of the professional factors such as driver's shift/ hours remaining, bus station spaces and other frustrations.

Having been to Worcester today and one of the drivers I know was on this rota today and I have a few suggestions that might make things slightly less tight. I find it silly that the decker off the 365 from Link Top runs dead basically along the whole 44A route so why not make it a extra 44A rather than rushing trying to get back into city which is gridlocked with Traffic on the ring road and of course the natural late ness of the 365 because of the high loading and high number of ticket transactions and stop, start nature of the route. I also noticed that the 16:45 32 and back is then followed by a 144 short or E working as I call it. Which only goes as far as Droitwich why not run it as a 144A to Catshill then dead to depot it just confuses passengers because they think that every 144/144A goes via Bromsgrove.

Basically my point is next timetable change remove the 16:45 32 and replace it with a extra 44A and extend the 144 short to Bromsgrove or better still make it a 144A to Catshill so passengers aren't left confused.

AdamH wrote: ↑

18:36 Thursday 22nd September 2016

we should be turning right in Leigh Sinton road...

How crafty and utterly ridiculous. I was struggling to read beyond this point as my face was flat in my palm.

All published timetables that I am aware of which detail this offending schooldays-only journey of Service 365 have it terminate at Link Top, BUS SHELTER.

Additionally, the final timing point on the running board which contains said journey is the capitalised 'LINK TOP' stage, which I have always been led to believe is the bus shelter at the traffic lights situated on Worcester Road; unless operating a service that runs via Newtown Road.

If this is to be the new practice, it needs to be reflected in the timetable as well as the running board. Having the final timing point read as 'Link Top, NEWTOWN ROAD' would not only make the public aware but also give drivers the incentive to return dead via the 'recommended' route and not have to unnecessarily run via Great Malvern.

I would be intrigued as for where the terminus point was actually established when this service was registered. If it were set as Link Top, Bus Shelter, surely the service would be required to be reregistered to reflect its amended terminus point, or perhaps now I'm just being facetious.

Well I did as I was asked and ran via Leigh Sinton. Probably is quicker but it didn't really help as I was already 14-minutes late arriving at Link Top. Got back to Crowngate at 1656 and departed on the 32 at 1658.

By the time I got to the St.Peter's terminus it was 1731, so the 1730 short 144 to Droitwich didn't happen. Partly because the 1745 144A was on time but mostly because I managed to kill the bus. Just as I arrived in Crowngate all the buzzers went off and within 20 yards the whole bus was dead, leaving me with just enough forward momentum to neatly roll into a parking bay!

Thanks for the update Adam.

Did you pick up any passengers on the "downhill 17.05" ?

- and was it the same DD that died on you in Hereford ?

I shall be very relieved if next week the company run the advertised services, or put warning notices on the bus stops and website (- possibly an "emergency timetable" after the 16.20 382 from Crowngate ?) - ??

No, empty from St.Peter's all the way into the City. I was 25 minutes late by this time so I guess everyone had given up and walked.

The vehicle was 32067 and that (type) is the correct one for Service 365 as they have the largest capacity.

I submitted quite a lengthy report about the 365 on Friday, and as a result, the bus will soon be departing the depot 10-minutes earlier to try and make sure it arrives and departs the school on time.

32067 was also checked over after I complained about poor performance and a number of faults were found. There was an air leak on a turbo pipe so basically I was driving a normally aspirated bus, the engine cutting out was put down to a cooling problem, but most worryingly fuel was found in the oil sump so it looks like a piston ring or similar has failed. It may be off the road for a while.

Our service planner is confident these changes will help improve the reliability of the 1645 Service 32, and they are certainly a step in the right direction. However, as always I will remain sceptical until proven wrong!