First Essex major changes in February

[F Great Eastern]

I see they haven't bothered to fix the X10/X30 debacle and no doubt the overcrowding will continue.

Really should have made them evenly spaced.

 

[DragonEast]

I see they haven't bothered to fix the X10/X30 debacle and no doubt the overcrowding will continue.

Really should have made them evenly spaced.

What did you expect from First Essex? They seem to keep repeating their mistakes on a continuing loop. We've now got the revised 40, for example, doing essentially the same thing as the failed 47 did when commercial a few years ago! They seem when they're not trying to fit a quart -or gallon - into a pint pot (as with the X30), serving a pint in a quart (or gallon) pot. If you're going to serve a major draw like a hospital (or even an Airport), don't you want the maximum rather than limit your catchment, if you want to make money? They have a funny way for a commercial operation to behave. Half a cheer for the network simplification, which helps with the PVR which seems to have grown like topsy over the last decade and must be ONE major reason why they underperform (by a huge margin) everyone else, but only one. Do they lose more passengers than they gain? Probably, as the lager ad puts it. Better reliability? Doubt it, they might hit even more congestion, as they (mostly) take off a bit here to add it there, and the actual cuts are on the bits of the network that actually work as they're supposed to. Much of it looks like changes for changes sake, to show (to whom?) they're doing something, and someone is trying to justify their existence. For the poor passengers it's probably enough to dissuade the (potential) competition. More's the pity. Growth, which surely has to be the long term solution for survival? Don't make me laugh. On the bright side they might be catching up with the changes that happened in the late nineteen-sixties and nineteen-seventies/early 80s, which, I suppose, in Essex passes for progress! I'm still not sure they understand what the passengers' transport needs are: it's not obvious that they have much idea either. If they provide new travel opportunities will they make sure the passengers are aware of them? Probably not, all the signs are of the usual mushroom treatment. Rather like a Monopoly game, the real people aren't on the board. It will get them through to the next set of changes, which I suppose is the point. Mostly, I fear, a lost opportunity.

First seem to be stuck with the, perhaps metropolitan, idea that links buses to a formula; the more buses the more passengers. I'm not sure that works in the Shires where you have to try and match your buses to the demand, and not just try to predict the potential demand, but find the way to tap into it, or even generate it. You can't just consider one thing at a time, but have to consider several at once. Perhaps try for once rather than "it's two/three/four buses an hour now how far can we afford for them to go", an approach more like "what is the demand we need to serve" and mould the network around that, and in designing your routes try to limit the impact of congestion rather than magnify its disruption, the biggest waste of all. (I've often wondered, in a metro-type area do longer routes help, more recovery time; but in a compact urban area might shorter routes be better - fewer congestion pinch points along the route, less disruption so that you can increase spacing and reduce PVR, and avoid the need for continual regulation)? There are compromises, of course. You might have to get your clothes from the charity shop, but don't you try to fit the glove to the hand, rather than the other way around?

 

[ChathillMan]

Re Essex Changes: The 42A Airport trips run through to Galleywood again - asking for trouble with regards to late running.

Almost lost in the shuffle is 4 buses an hour between Braintree and Chelmsford - so not all bad

 

[Cesarcollie]

Re Essex Changes: The 42A Airport trips run through to Galleywood again - asking for trouble with regards to late running.

Almost lost in the shuffle is 4 buses an hour between Braintree and Chelmsford - so not all bad

Yes, but 2 of those are yet another (different!!) extension of the 42. Very efficient on paper but makes the service prone to yet more reliability issues- and doesn't really do much for customer comprehension!!

 

[Robertj21a]

Yes, but 2 of those are yet another (different!!) extension of the 42. Very efficient on paper but makes the service prone to yet more reliability issues- and doesn't really do much for customer comprehension!!

Any idea how many buses will be saved by all the changes ?

 

[Lezlee]

Not sure how many buses are going but with transfers from outside Essex and within, a lot of the older stock in Essex will be withdrawn.

 

[Cesarcollie]

Any idea how many buses will be saved by all the changes ?

I haven't had the time or willpower to try and work it out!! 41 and 72 withdrawals save 7. Then I think there are also savings at Clacton, Colchester and Basildon. Not sure about Hadleigh. My hunch is that the overall net saving will 15-20 (I originally said 10-20 but I've revised the lower end estimate)

 

[DragonEast]

I haven't had the time or willpower to try and work it out!! 41 and 72 withdrawals save 7. Then I think there are also savings at Clacton, Colchester and Basildon. Not sure about Hadleigh. My hunch is that the overall net saving will 15-20 (I originally said 10-20 but I've revised the lower end estimate)

Isn't there a bit of netting off with the 56/57/42 extensions and some increased frequency and the new 16 from Basildon? With regard to the latter, FEx seem to become increasingly dependent on developer contributions (hence, I suspect the preponderence of services in north Chelmsford - may be even including the 40-instead of-72, and I'm still not sure whether the Witham leg was lost when a subsidy run out), which will carry service frequency obligations. Otherwise I'm slightly confused by the "hospital" service that services the small village and misses the large village and neighbouring town, in favour of 2 buses an hour rather than one, presumably? It might keep the competitor out and meet a planning obligation, presumably, but is that a good thing for the passengers, and profits? Clearly it's target driven, but is that target profits? Overall it seems to be the same as the other major ops are doing but the question is will it deliver the same profits? I'm still not sure, it still for me raises some questions on their commercial judgement. But probably a bit less of a mess than they were, and that has to be a good thing for a company that I fear may have still bitten off more than it can chew. It should all help the competition though, which is a good thing. Though the competition as far as I can see were doing alright already. It was First we were worried about!

I'm told Colchester loses 6 vehicles? Might i suppose be the same for the rest as an equality of misery - if getting rid of its oldest stock could be called that. It seems to me to be an (overdue) attempt at making the network more efficient, with timetables/routes, hence for instance the loss of the Peldon diversion around Colchester, and sorting out the Canvey commuter peak (but what about Chelmsford?) mess; and the recovery time built into the 40 timetable, and others. They still look to me to be short term, and I'm still not convinced they are building a sustainable network for when the developers' money runs out. It still looks to me a triumph of quantity (mileage for money) over quality (efficiency and reliability). All questions for another day, no doubt!

 

[Cambus731]

Loads of changes to get your head around.
To me the most peculiar is the extension of the 32 from Chelmsford bus station to Chignal Estate, presumably to replace the Regal operated 1 and 3 as well as First's 41.
I'm not sure if this route is going to be operated commercially by First or if it is going to continue to be worked under contract to Essex County Council.
https://www.firstgroup.com/essex/ne...ce-changes-week-commencing-18th-february-2018

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Not sure how many buses are going but with transfers from outside Essex and within, a lot of the older stock in Essex will be withdrawn.

What is on the hit list? Think there’s a number of old Solos that some ex FWoE Darts were helping to replace. What else?

 

[nesw]

Solos' only recently repainted.

 

[Robertj21a]

Some suggestion that pvr may reduce by more than 20.

 

[Lezlee]

What is on the hit list? Think there’s a number of old Solos that some ex FWoE Darts were helping to replace. What else?

The 5 ex Chelmsford Park and Ride Scania Omnicities are transferring north to Colchester.

Most of the Optare Solos are going, but not all of them. There will still be 5 or 6 left.

Chelmsford has also recently received a couple of Caetano Darts from First Potteries and a couple of Volvo B7RLEs.

I'm not sure what will be leaving Colchester, maybe some of the oldest Scanias, maybe even the Presidents, but they had a mid life refurbishment only around 6 years ago so I would think they would stay around for a bit longer.

 

[Cesarcollie]

Solos' only recently repainted.

Most were done a couple of years ago, but in-house using a broom I think - they all look pretty scruffy and give the impression the engineers have given up on them!!

 

[Lezlee]

Most were done a couple of years ago, but in-house using a broom I think - they all look pretty scruffy and give the impression the engineers have given up on them!!

The first Solos were repainted in 2012, so the rust is starting to come through on quite a lot of them now!

 

[route101]

To try and ease overcrowding on the Summerston runs. The 31 might be busy in the peaks, but the runs going Summerston way in constantly busy.

Deckers back on 31 , wonder why they changed back quickly . Im not complaining as more space

 

[DragonEast]

The 5 ex Chelmsford Park and Ride Scania Omnicities are transferring north to Colchester.

Most of the Optare Solos are going, but not all of them. There will still be 5 or 6 left.

Chelmsford has also recently received a couple of Caetano Darts from First Potteries and a couple of Volvo B7RLEs.

I'm not sure what will be leaving Colchester, maybe some of the oldest Scanias, maybe even the Presidents, but they had a mid life refurbishment only around 6 years ago so I would think they would stay around for a bit longer.

The loss of the Omnicities might be a shame (though I can see even less then of the point of the half-hourly daytime 71 mostly caught up in the jams). They'll probably keep some Solos for the tendered routes, the 13/14 comes to mind. If Chelmsford becomes the junkyard (though hardly surprising if it makes as little money as I suspect) they might again have the same reliability problems they had a few years ago on the inter urban routes that have to cope with the horrors of the A12 and the Dengie. I was always surprised at the poor Colchester fleet for a university town, so no surprise if that's at last being addressed. Chelmsford "City" though is a laughing stock! Another of Cameron's follies.

 

[DragonEast]

All hardly surprising. First Essex must operate a dreadfully inefficient network, judging by the financial results. An income and size (judged by staffing) pretty well equivalent to neighbours Cambus (Stagecoach) - after making an allowance for Cambridge (like little London) but nil profit compared to up to £10m. Thinking they could go on as they are is a pipedream . . . even Stephensons are profitable with a portfolio of routes abandoned by First for being uneconomic! It's not all down to the state of the fleet or drivers wages, surely? Everyone is cutting back to reduce costs, but the local cutbacks at Stagecoach and Arriva seem cleverly designed to adapt the network to maintain coverage and to reduce the impact of congestion at the same time.

Trouble is that whilst I can understand trying to replicate a Norwich Network (minus the branding) in Chelmsford and leaving the competition Stephensons (72) and Arriva (41) to do what they do best, and that if you ask the drivers and passengers they'd say "don't send us round the houses so much, life would be easier and and we'd be more reliable/we'd use the bus more" but just because we say it doesn't make it true. The focus group curse. And does the solution for a spread out urbanised area like greater Norwich (or greater Cambridge) work in compact Chelmsford (hemmed in like many Home Counties towns by the Green Belt)? We will see, I suppose. I won't be holding my breath, though. The old damned if we do, damned if we don't, that, in fairness, afflicts the whole industry. At least we might find out if the metro services that suit First (or so they think) suit Essex too, or not. I still think Essex (the people of the county, but that includes the bus company too) suffer the additional handicap that, mostly, they just don't get customer service - or the idea of looking at anything from someone else's point of view - and any customer-service industry suffers accordingly (though Southend and Colchester that were historically quasi-independent may be exceptions - which benefits Arriva's ex-municipal operations, perhaps) but it's the curse of mid-Essex.

But they really are their own worst enemies, witness the neglect of the X30, their biggest asset. I can't imagine that with Stagecoach X services. Or even Eastern Counties. And, seriously, it seems nothing yet (barring customer services on the web) by way of notice to passengers (or drivers, it appears) about next weekends fare changes? There must be standardised fare levels, why can't we know at least sample increases, not just for m-tickets? One driver predicts "there will be chaos". An understatement. Are they trying to increase income, or not? Heads in the sand. Do First Essex have any busmen left (or lost) amongst the management?

 

[Cesarcollie]

All hardly surprising. First Essex must operate a dreadfully inefficient network, judging by the financial results. An income and size (judged by staffing) pretty well equivalent to neighbours Cambus (Stagecoach) - after making an allowance for Cambridge (like little London) but nil profit compared to up to £10m. Thinking they could go on as they are is a pipedream . . . even Stephensons are profitable with a portfolio of routes abandoned by First for being uneconomic! It's not all down to the state of the fleet or drivers wages, surely? Everyone is cutting back to reduce costs, but the local cutbacks at Stagecoach and Arriva seem cleverly designed to adapt the network to maintain coverage and to reduce the impact of congestion at the same time.

Trouble is that whilst I can understand trying to replicate a Norwich Network (minus the branding) in Chelmsford and leaving the competition Stephensons (72) and Arriva (41) to do what they do best, and that if you ask the drivers and passengers they'd say "don't send us round the houses so much, life would be easier and and we'd be more reliable/we'd use the bus more" but just because we say it doesn't make it true. The focus group curse. And does the solution for a spread out urbanised area like greater Norwich (or greater Cambridge) work in compact Chelmsford (hemmed in like many Home Counties towns by the Green Belt)? We will see, I suppose. I won't be holding my breath, though. The old damned if we do, damned if we don't, that, in fairness, afflicts the whole industry. At least we might find out if the metro services that suit First (or so they think) suit Essex too, or not. I still think Essex (the people of the county, but that includes the bus company too) suffer the additional handicap that, mostly, they just don't get customer service - or the idea of looking at anything from someone else's point of view - and any customer-service industry suffers accordingly (though Southend and Colchester that were historically quasi-independent may be exceptions - which benefits Arriva's ex-municipal operations, perhaps) but it's the curse of mid-Essex.

But they really are their own worst enemies, witness the neglect of the X30, their biggest asset. I can't imagine that with Stagecoach X services. Or even Eastern Counties. And, seriously, it seems nothing yet (barring customer services on the web) by way of notice to passengers (or drivers, it appears) about next weekends fare changes? There must be standardised fare levels, why can't we know at least sample increases, not just for m-tickets? One driver predicts "there will be chaos". An understatement. Are they trying to increase income, or not? Heads in the sand. Do First Essex have any busmen left (or lost) amongst the management?

In fairness, First are in a quandary with many of their Essex urban networks. Basildon was simplified and 'Metro'ised back in Thamesway days, though has got more complicated again since. In Southend and Colchester a 'logical' network risks 'rising tensions' with Arriva, where there is currently a slightly unsteady sort of status quo. Too much rationalisation in Clacton would give Go Ahead some possibilities (their presence in Clacton currently is largely between schools off peak). That leaves Chelmsford, which is a network crying out for radical simplification. Unfortunately the town (sorry, City!!) has grown in ways which aren't always suited to logical bus routes, and the outcry from 'simplification' would be huge - though would no doubt generate more patronage in the medium to longer term. Unfortunately the network if anything is becoming more complex rather than less, with odd variations to plug gaps and alternate extensions of services to replace stuff that's been withdrawn etc etc. Add to that the huge and seemingly random use of vehicle types and liveries across the Chelmsford network (Solo, Dart, E200 classic, E200 MMC, Volvo etc) and from a customer perspective it's all a bit......baffling.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In fairness, First are in a quandary with many of their Essex urban networks. Basildon was simplified and 'Metro'ised back in Thamesway days, though has got more complicated again since. In Southend and Colchester a 'logical' network risks 'rising tensions' with Arriva, where there is currently a slightly unsteady sort of status quo. Too much rationalisation in Clacton would give Go Ahead some possibilities (their presence in Clacton currently is largely between schools off peak). That leaves Chelmsford, which is a network crying out for radical simplification. Unfortunately the town (sorry, City!!) has grown in ways which aren't always suited to logical bus routes, and the outcry from 'simplification' would be huge - though would no doubt generate more patronage in the medium to longer term. Unfortunately the network if anything is becoming more complex rather than less, with odd variations to plug gaps and alternate extensions of services to replace stuff that's been withdrawn etc etc. Add to that the huge and seemingly random use of vehicle types and liveries across the Chelmsford network (Solo, Dart, E200 classic, E200 MMC, Volvo etc) and from a customer perspective it's all a bit......baffling.

One little observation (from afar) is that whilst First have flatlined, that’s better than Hedingham’s recent results - last two years losing over a million on a £4m turnover!

 

[Cesarcollie]

One little observation (from afar) is that whilst First have flatlined, that’s better than Hedingham’s recent results - last two years losing over a million on a £4m turnover!

Yes indeed - and whilst First have a lot of options to increase profitability (and we can debate endlessly whether what they do is right or wrong) Hedingham have nowhere to go. They are essentially a school contract business, with some tendered ECC local bus routes added in, and a couple of 'commercial' local bus services - most of which are in competition with First and I suspect are not as 'commercial' as Go Ahead might wish.... The fleet is ageing (though arguably suited to the work it performs) and it's hard to predict the future. Best option for GA would be to accept it (and with it Chambers as the two are run together) wasn't a sensible buy, and close it down/sell it/give it away. But that's probably too bold a move given the main Board are largely the same people who were in post when Hedingham was purchased (unlike the situation in First, where many things can be blamed on the previous management).

 

[overthewater]

Yes indeed - and whilst First have a lot of options to increase profitability (and we can debate endlessly whether what they do is right or wrong) Hedingham have nowhere to go. They are essentially a school contract business, with some tendered ECC local bus routes added in, and a couple of 'commercial' local bus services - most of which are in competition with First and I suspect are not as 'commercial' as Go Ahead might wish.... The fleet is ageing (though arguably suited to the work it performs) and it's hard to predict the future. Best option for GA would be to accept it (and with it Chambers as the two are run together) wasn't a sensible buy, and close it down/sell it/give it away. But that's probably too bold a move given the main Board are largely the same people who were in post when Hedingham was purchased (unlike the situation in First, where many things can be blamed on the previous management).

We dont know why there went in there, as I was made clear off. There could be another game afoot... looking what else it could expand if others were to disappear... but who knows, we could all be wrong.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

We dont know why there went in there, as I was made clear off. There could be another game afoot... looking what else it could expand if others were to disappear... but who knows, we could all be wrong.

They bought into Hedingham (and Chambers) in 2012 - the time when they were looking to grow their bus business particularly and also when the problems of First Group became readily evident after Moir's departure. With the owner being ill, they may have seen it as a reasonable purchase at a decent price and a bridgehead to an expanded presence?

 

[DragonEast]

I find it interesting that Hedingham (Go Ahead) have more recently started to compete with First on the 88 and 74/6 - both if I'm right the proposed sites for the "New Towns" to meet the dominant Government-determined housing needs for the south-east, which rule everything in this corner of the country (literally). Get that sewn up, as First seem to have done with Beaulieu Park, north of Chelmsford (the local exemplar) and you are as close as you can get to a winner. Sustainability often means developers bunging a few bob (well, up to 000,000s or into the millions, but a few bob in their terms) of revenue support, and if you're lucky some fleet, to the busmen. It's cheaper than road-building, or rail, but Beaulieu must be a nice little earner as it gets all three (eventually, allegedly, but it's all good marketing to desperate London exiles). Must seem like heaven to First who for once justified their name and got in first!! Quite rightly, too. (But it's housing developers, so not enough money judging by their bonuses and share prices, and helped of course by subsidies from our taxes thanks to the last lot). Neither of the north east Essex sites have the rail option which Beaulieu has - though thanks to National Rail that's still ten years off (after ten years) and receding more quickly that it's coming. Like the trains that run on it, probably! The problem is that it skewers the rest of the bus network, too! But, probably as Hedingham forgot, and perhaps haven't learned yet, it takes a heck of lot of patience (as with everything to do with the planning system), and a lot else can happen in the meantime too! The good news is that it has to happen. The economy depends on it (house building) - and of course th'internet. (It's my local BT exchange too, sadly on the old infrastructure).

Of course for all us pedants s106 monies (as we know them) have to be required and spent only on matters directly related to and required to meet the needs of the development from which they come, which leaves the industry professionals (and the laywers) plenty of room for argument, and the recipients with a few headaches. If though the money goes directly to the bus company, the commissioning doesn't have to go through the usual publicly funded tendering process, as I understand it, so there is another direct benefit! But they are still tied up in the contract knots and, of course, more money means more knots. The sums involved aren't tiny any more as public finance support has dwindled.

 

[DragonEast]

across the Chelmsford network (Solo, Dart, E200 classic, E200 MMC, Volvo etc) and from a customer perspective it's all a bit......baffling.

And perhaps too it must be a nightmare to drive and maintain, and even more so . . . to regulate?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And perhaps too it must be a nightmare to drive and maintain, and even more so . . . to regulate?

Don’t know what you mean by regulate!

Also, that’s not a massive range of vehicle types -

Solo for mini
Dart/e200 (which are pretty similar in terms of drivetrain)
E200mmc
Volvo B7RLE

The Omnicities are heading to Colchester? - doubtless to help maintenance and standardise vehicle types). Other than the e350H and YSBs, quite dull.

Compare with First Bath who have (takes breath)

Solo
B7RLE
B7LA
Scania L94
Dart/e200
Streetlite
Streetlite Microhybrid
E400H
B7TL
B9TL
E400mmc

 

[Wirewiper]

Slightly off-topic, but over the border into Suffolk and Ipswich Buses also have service revisions pencilled in for 18th February.

http://www.ipswichbuses.co.uk/news/detail/18-february-2018-service-fare-changes

All buses after 20.00 on Sunday are planned for withdrawal due to lack of use, although some may get reprieved if the local Council agrees to fund them.

There are a number of changes on services to the East of the town (again!), including splitting the circular 6/6a at the Hospital and resurrecting the number 2 for the southern section via Ravenswood & Cliff Lane. New routes 1 and 3 replace the X1 and X3 but in a different form, with the new 1 providing a more direct link to Greenwich. The 4 loses its Martlesham extension. The X5 to Ipswich Hospital is renumbered 5 and extends on Monday-Saturday evenings up to Northgate and Rushmere as route 5E to replace the 6 at these times.

There is a new hourly route 7, which replaces the 19 to Dale Hall and also provides links across Castle Hill to ASDA at Whitehouse. This route also replaces the once-a-day 17.

The 14 to Gippeswyk Park is withdrawn.

There are timetable changes on most routes, and there will be a general fare revision within Ipswich Borough with some fare zone boundaries moved.

 

[DragonEast]

Don’t know what you mean by regulate!

Also, that’s not a massive range of vehicle types -
...
Compare with First Bath who have (takes breath)

Solo
B7RLE
B7LA
Scania L94
Dart/e200
Streetlite
Streetlite Microhybrid
E400H
B7TL
B9TL
E400mmc

Excellent point, taken! I was thinking more of the route variations, and apparent hot running; and by regulation the variations to day-to-day running when routes are affected by congestion (all the time) when many routes have timetabled variations to start with and (presumably) the various legs may be affected by congestion differently. A sort of magnified domino effect. I don't have any personal experience, though; fortunately!

 

[overthewater]

They bought into Hedingham (and Chambers) in 2012 - the time when they were looking to grow their bus business particularly and also when the problems of First Group became readily evident after Moir's departure. With the owner being ill, they may have seen it as a reasonable purchase at a decent price and a bridgehead to an expanded presence?

It must partly been in the back of Go ahead head there could expand in the area. Hedingham and Chambers could have went to Arriva instead as that would have bolt on alright.

 

[DragonEast]

It must partly been in the back of Go ahead head there could expand in the area. Hedingham and Chambers could have went to Arriva instead as that would have bolt on alright.

From their local behaviour, I suspect that Arriva Herts & Essex/Shires (now run I think with the Kent op so it surrounds London across the Home Counties) aren't keen on rural/subsidised routes (like Stagecoach) concentrating on urban and inter-urban routes where there is significant commuter traffic. Maybe it's the beholden argument, not masters in their own house. First and Go Ahead (at least in the East) don't perhaps have so much option!

Arriva Essex seem to be doing OK with their Stansted, Colchester P&R and other Essex ops, but I believe are reviewing across Herts/Essex (with some timetable changes due at Harlow in March) so we might find out more in due course. I suspect it's tweaking, rather than disposals or significant withdrawals. Rather like Stagecoach East, again; or indeed First Essex, actually! So perhaps everyone is treading water! Boring, but sensible?