MidlandRed.net

Regarding the 365 leaving the depot 10 mins earlier, I wonder if it will it be able to get through and out-of the congested school terminus on time (?)

32067 .... the curse continues !!

DD12, you will be pleased to know I managed to run the 1645 Service 32 spot on time today, and I have "Red Midland" as my witness!

For reasons unknown the passenger numbers from the school were down about one-third today, and my bus 33403 which is a fine and noble steed capable of a steady 30mph up Barnards Green Road, which is double what I could manage in 32067 even with a run-up.

AdamH wrote: ↑

19:08 Wednesday 5th October 2016

DD12, you will be pleased to know I managed to run the 1645 Service 32 spot on time today, and I have "Red Midland" as my witness!

For reasons unknown the passenger numbers from the school were down about one-third today, and my bus 33403 which is a fine and noble steed capable of a steady 30mph up Barnards Green Road, which is double what I could manage in 32067 even with a run-up.

Thanks Adam, - I love the detail and colour I get from you and others on this forum (Stuff that you don't get anywhere else!)

Unfortunately, it didn't run again yesterday, and -
the outbound 16.30 333 from Crowngate DID run on time, so passengers for 16.45 had to wait 20 mins for the 17.05;
- and the inbound 16.46 32 from Baynhall also ran on time, so any customers waiting along St.Peters Drive and Bath Road for the missing 17.05, would have had to wait at least 40 mins, again - BUT there weren't any - again !

(Did you pick up any on the 17.05 "downhill" today Adam?)

My impression is that First are not taking this matter seriously enough and that they are falling below the minimum professional standards that are required -
I got a feeble reply to my "Tweet" to the company (Tweeting is next-to useless, because it restricts the length of one's message - in the extreme !)

I have yet to get a reply to the message I sent via the "form" on the company website.

It looks to me probable that First have left themselves with one vehicle and one driver - too few to cover the 16.45 when the bus from the 365 gets back 15 mins late (+),
and twice now I have seen the 16.45 double-decker to St.P, and the 17.05 double-decker (off the 32A) to Baynhall, running up the Bath Road virtually together (with perhaps 30 passengers total).

Suggestion number 1 :- First could consider allocating one extra vehicle and driver to PM duties, compared to AM duties.
This could cover for breakdown of school-time buses (in service), and help with Worcester's notorious traffic, from say 16.30.
(After all, First has reduced our allocation by 7, - or 6 if 20201 gets reinstated).

Suggestion number 2 :- First could remove the 16.45 outbound, and the 17.05 return from the timetable (ASAP) which is better than leaving decent people (up-to 6 of them !!) waiting for a bus that comes up to 50 mins late (- this September).
Other adjustments around this, could possibly be made by "those at First who have the full picture" - such as changing the 16.30 333 (which is sometimes late) to leave at 16.40 - but this could need a double-decker as the new house building around Kempsey progresses.

Another change that might be viable is making the 16.46 32 from Baynhall leave 10 mins later to "incorporate" the 17.05 from St.Peters to Crowngate (?)

Of course, there are very many considerations and permutations when it comes to timetable planning, and EVERYBODY in the world ( ... and their dog) thinks they can do it better.

WOOF !

DD12 wrote: ↑

21:31 Wednesday 5th October 2016

...Did you pick up any on the 17.05 "downhill" today Adam?...

No, I was about ten minutes late by the time I got to St. Peter's thanks to the terrible traffic light timing at the end of City Walls Road and the bottom of Bath Road which only lets one or two vehicles through at a time. As a result, the bus from Baynhall was only a few minutes in front of me (I met him at Tescos on my way up) and took all the passengers.

I had a clear run into the city and my next trip, the 17:30 short 144 to Droitwich departed on time.

It has been obvious to me for some time that the traffic lights on the section of road between the Cathedral and the end of Bath Road are set up to give priority to traffic coming into the City, probably to help congestion in the mornings, but do not change in the afternoons meaning delays for anyone trying to get out of the City.

Thanks Adam.
I agree about the terrible traffic light timing, and also I think that traffic volumes along this route must vary also -
In the second half of September, I have observed the outbound buses doing the right-turn onto the Bath Road in as little as 10 minutes after their timetabled departure from Crowngate, but some taking 20 mins (examples were the 16.20 382 and the 17.05 32) -
and some taking as much as 30 mins, although I assume that these ( - the 16.30 333 from Crowngate, - seen twice) were probably delayed before they even got to Crowngate.

So for planning purposes, I would allow 20 mins to do the Crowngate to Bath Road (Albion) section - AND it now seems to take up-to 5 extra minutes to get my car up to the top of the Bath Road !
So, - if an outbound 32 is needed on it's return at Crowngate for another duty (EG: the short 144 to Droitwich) THAT 32 needs to have a "guaranteed" departure time from Crowngate in the first place - (EG: the 16.45).

I've seen a lot of unhappy-looking people waiting for ages at stops - from the Albion southwards (some bound for Eckington or Upton), and because of the variation in the traffic-jam above, I guess the timetables will have to show the EARLIEST time the bus is due at a stop.

I would like to see on all the timetables (including those at the bus-stops) a red "J", - suffixed to the affected times, with the explanatory note -
J= "frequent variable traffic jams are causing variable delays to this journey."

Regarding "Real-Time" info for potential customers, there are a couple of considerations, - one is that it will be a long time before everyone has a smart-phone; and live info displays can only be installed at a small % of stops.
Ironically, there are possibly two problems in providing real-time info at the stop that (possibly) most needs it, - at the "city end" of the Bath Road (opposite the Albion) - where I see a lot of unhappy-looking people waiting for their outbound bus:-
- one problem is that the pavement/footway there is very narrow,
and the other problem is that the real-time info system might not work properly, due to the close proximity of the stop to the variable traffic-jam.

As the city council has expressed a willingness to review traffic light timings, I would like it if First "pushed" for improvements along the Cathedral to Bath Road section.
IF I'm right about the variable traffic volume (and/or THE TIME IT KICKS-IN), then perhaps a "transponder or techy" solution is needed.

In advance of any future changes made by First, I would like to highlight that there are usually one or two low-floor buses that have returned to the depot BY 17.15 - one of which could work the 17.30 short 144, or similar - the only extra cost being the driver's wages (?)

I really hope that there is a member of staff at Crowngate - during and beyond the PM rush-hour, - to organise things when necessary.

Apologies to everyone at First if any of the above is wrong (or "total - b*ll*cks !)

Not sure Worcester would be up to a 'transponder or techy' solution as they never seem to have got them to work in the past. I am old enough to remember when they introduced a system called Scoot to link the various traffic lights throughout the city. In theory if you caught your first on green and travelled at a steady speed you would never have to stop!

Of course it never worked just like the (in)famous Angel Street bollards. They seem to work almost everywhere else but not here. Just like Park and Ride. As one who has to battle the Bromsgrove Western by-pass several times a week I despair at the County Council's total ineptitude when it comes to traffic management. All they seem good at is managing to add to the problems by agreeing to lengthy road closures at the most inconvenient times and places possible.

chason wrote: ↑

09:35 Saturday 8th October 2016

Not sure Worcester would be up to a 'transponder or techy' solution as they never seem to have got them to work in the past. I am old enough to remember when they introduced a system called Scoot to link the various traffic lights throughout the city. In theory if you caught your first on green and travelled at a steady speed you would never have to stop!

Of course it never worked just like the (in)famous Angel Street bollards. They seem to work almost everywhere else but not here. Just like Park and Ride. As one who has to battle the Bromsgrove Western by-pass several times a week I despair at the County Council's total ineptitude when it comes to traffic management. All they seem good at is managing to add to the problems by agreeing to lengthy road closures at the most inconvenient times and places possible.

I should of course said the Bromsgrove Eastern by-pass. The Western by-pass, although much talked about for years, has never even reached the drawing board stage as far as I am aware. In fact some of the powers that be think it's not necessary because the M5 serves that purpose - wish that were true. More often than not it's the A38 that serves as the M5 by-pass!

A few weeks ago, after taking 35 minutes to travel by car from by The Victoria football ground in Bromsgrove to Marlbrook.,[due to the Stourbridge Road being closed and temporary lights at the Marlbrook cross-roads. ] sent an e-mail to WCC complaining and asking how they managed to get gridlock on such a regular basis, I also asked if any of their transport planners actually travelled around to see what chaos was being caused. I did get a reply , one part of which was " WCC staff get held up in the congestion also " . . . . . .

Great to see WR StreetDecks being used on the 16.45 32, two days running !

- Are they any quicker than the VX54 Tridents and 32066, anyone ?

Everything is quicker than 32066!

WR1st was on it yesterday so maybe he can answer your question. Don't get used to it... Once the Rail Replacement contact is over we will have enough double-decks to meet demand and things will (should) be back to normal.

It doesn't help that 32067 is still off the road (long-term) with a dead engine and 33404 is off the road (short-term) with a dead fuel pump.