Glasgowbusguy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 419
Sorry auto correct ment spt
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ways to improve the First Glasgow Network
- Thread starter duffers2324
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Any loadshares anyone can think of that could take the load off of Caley?
The 60/60A could definitely be part ran by Scotstoun as Clydebank/Milngavie are far closer to that depot. The 4/4A for a similar split too. The Broomhill terminus is just over 5 mins from Scotstoun. The main problem for taking the load off of Caley would definitely be space at other depots. Passed Scotstoun a few times late at night when everything has been back in and it looks quite cramped for space
The 60/60A could definitely be part ran by Scotstoun as Clydebank/Milngavie are far closer to that depot. The 4/4A for a similar split too. The Broomhill terminus is just over 5 mins from Scotstoun. The main problem for taking the load off of Caley would definitely be space at other depots. Passed Scotstoun a few times late at night when everything has been back in and it looks quite cramped for space
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
So to take Mount Florida as an example...
The train takes about 11 minutes into the centre of Glasgow and costs £3.10 return without a railcard. The bus takes twice as long - how much cheaper would it need to be to compete with the train? Of course people would get the train!
First aren't going to compete with the train where the stations are central and the time differential is so great.
As for route development and new things..... not just in Glasgow but everywhere, travelling patterns are ingrained in people. Buses go the way they go because people want to go there, and unless something fundamental changes (e.g. new hospital, new scheme, new university campus, new shopping centre) then why would things change? Of course, with the latter, they usually have plentiful free parking so.....
With how unreliable the trains are in Glasgow hence Abellio losing the franchise so early First could have drawn in more custom with lower fares especially in areas like Mount Florida. Already so many more buses than trains so there's an opportunity.
Fares could definitely be cheaper too. The 17 from Citybus compared to the 60/60A/61 is a great example. Max single fare is £2.20 on a 17 and an All day is only £4.10 yet that's not even long been the price either. They carry a fair load despite the amount of First buses. First could easily operate with a £2 single fare and £4 all day.
The argument that First know where people want to go isn't exactly 100% accurate either. There's not been any communication as to what customers want from First in terms of routes etc for as long as I remember.
People in Knightswood wanted their West end link and it got cut so the X4 is less used that the 4 was outside of peaks 100% anyway. Kelvindale also suffered with this as the 4A was cut when people wanted the city centre link.
Garscadden lost its West end link when the 42 was cut hence why a lot of Avondale 400s carry decent numbers while being absolutely worn down vehicle wise. The 42 was also handy for people that wanted Sauchiehall St and Cathedral St which there was a fair few of. It was my main bus and it was fairly busy.
The 1C works well but it isn't so busy outside of peaks beyond Scotstoun to show that it's so much better than the 42 was. The 1s overall have been great but that's the one problem. Having both links would have been fine plus all it done was make the train better for people.
The QEUH are all a bit same-same except the 34A. The 8 and 16 absolutely don't need to go there as the 77 is good enough to carry the small load to the hospital.
The 16 has been a mess in more than one way tbh. The cuts before made North Knightswood and Temple lose a City Centre link. People wanted a quicker route to the hospital from Drumchapel than the 16 provided and like the 42 it was a Sauchiehall St link lost.
First really need to communicate so much more with customers and it would help them a great deal more than people think. Look at the mess that happened with the 19A and X1 issues. A lot of bad press that was avoidable all with a bit of communication.
I'm sure there's more examples like what I've said above too. The 11 is also another that sticks in my head plus those mentioned are the closest ones to where I stay and know best of too
Fares could definitely be cheaper too. The 17 from Citybus compared to the 60/60A/61 is a great example. Max single fare is £2.20 on a 17 and an All day is only £4.10 yet that's not even long been the price either. They carry a fair load despite the amount of First buses. First could easily operate with a £2 single fare and £4 all day.
The argument that First know where people want to go isn't exactly 100% accurate either. There's not been any communication as to what customers want from First in terms of routes etc for as long as I remember.
People in Knightswood wanted their West end link and it got cut so the X4 is less used that the 4 was outside of peaks 100% anyway. Kelvindale also suffered with this as the 4A was cut when people wanted the city centre link.
Garscadden lost its West end link when the 42 was cut hence why a lot of Avondale 400s carry decent numbers while being absolutely worn down vehicle wise. The 42 was also handy for people that wanted Sauchiehall St and Cathedral St which there was a fair few of. It was my main bus and it was fairly busy.
The 1C works well but it isn't so busy outside of peaks beyond Scotstoun to show that it's so much better than the 42 was. The 1s overall have been great but that's the one problem. Having both links would have been fine plus all it done was make the train better for people.
The QEUH are all a bit same-same except the 34A. The 8 and 16 absolutely don't need to go there as the 77 is good enough to carry the small load to the hospital.
The 16 has been a mess in more than one way tbh. The cuts before made North Knightswood and Temple lose a City Centre link. People wanted a quicker route to the hospital from Drumchapel than the 16 provided and like the 42 it was a Sauchiehall St link lost.
First really need to communicate so much more with customers and it would help them a great deal more than people think. Look at the mess that happened with the 19A and X1 issues. A lot of bad press that was avoidable all with a bit of communication.
I'm sure there's more examples like what I've said above too. The 11 is also another that sticks in my head plus those mentioned are the closest ones to where I stay and know best of too
Abellio haven't lost the franchise, don't believe everything you read in the papers and hear on the news. The franchise was DUE to end in March 2022 unless an extension was granted which it wasn't.
Was it not a 10 year contract meaning the end is 2025 not 2022? Reported everywhere as a 10 year contract and I'm not a newspaper reader at all plus the fact an extension wasn't granted shows how bad they've been
AIUI, Abellio are having their franchise terminated early not because of unreliability but because they were wanting a larger subsidy going forward, and the Scottish Government didn't think their future service offering in terms of enhancements was worth the price. Yes, Abellio reliability hasn't been good until very recently but - again AIUI - this was heavily driven by the delayed introduction of the new 385 electric trains (which resulted in a shortage of DMU's) and problems with the refurbished HSTs for longer distance routes. Neither of which would any impact on Glasgow suburban rail services - the 385s are mainly concentrated on the Edinburgh/Glasgow/Stirling/Alloa/Dunblane/Shotts/Cumbernauld/Lanark routes with some very limited appearances on the Cathcart routes.
I really don't think Scotrail reliability issues on Glasgow suburban services (certainly no where near the issues experienced in many places in England) would represent a serious opportunity for First. Because the road congestion - i believe - is a greater deterent than Scotrail's overall performance in the Glasgow area. I had a quick look at Scotrail stats, and IF I'm reading it correctly, trains arriving within 5 mins of their scheduled time in the last year for "west suburban peak" (which I assume to be Glasgow and the west) was 85% and for off peak 92%. Trains run/not cancelled was 99%. Based on those figures I don't see how First would have an opportunity for much custom at all.
https://www.scotrail.co.uk/sites/de...oad_ct/performance_update_081219_-_040120.pdf
Jordan Adam
Established Member
No, as per Colin's post it was due to end in 2022 anyway with the potential of an extension to 2025, which hasn't been granted. It was nothing to do with reliability.
Thanks for the info
Anything less than 100% for any operator creates opportunities for another. Surprised the figures are that high as there's problems mentioned every single day usually and a lot through Glasgow Central/Queen St. Areas where there's more buses than trains would certainly be easier to gain in with reliability issues. If people end up forced onto buses they'd realise more and more than bus could be a better option. Obv prices would need to be lower too to absolutely secure this though
I think in Glasgow the bus will never beat the train service, compared to other places except for London, Glasgow has an extensive suburban network and recent improvements to rolling stock and stations has only boosted its popularity. I know from where I live I can more or less walk to my local station and straight onto a train and be in the City Centre in around 20 minutes whereas on the bus it's more expensive, less frequent and takes double the time so it's a no brainer. Also, unlike bus companies, Scotrail has been far more willing to refurbish rolling stock to a high standard whilst the buses are mostly hanging inside with manky seats, grab poles where the paint has peeled off among other damage. Scotrail's Class 318s which are now the oldest units on the network are around 34-35 years old yet inside they don't even look half that age.
I agree with that. I think the biggest problem Glasgow has buswise has come from how many operations First have. It will only get worse from here tbh as people get alienated by First far too easily. There were too many years of stock neglect and cutbacks for anything to ever recover. If First could at least look like they care remotely about customers they might have some life left but I don't see it happening. They need to start communicating over customer wants etc too because they'd find a lot of suggestions that might actually work for certain services
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
This seems all to be wishful thinking on your part. The fact is that rail is very competitive on terms of price and speed so if you live near a station and have to get into Glasgow city centre, the train has a massive advantage. That the 99% figure provides some sort of opportunity is just not true; that's actually very reliable and probably as reliable as the bus service. I can point to examples all over the UK where an existing bus service has been decimated once a rail service has been improved because speed and convenience is more important. This isn't my opinion - it's demonstrable FACT.
You are absolutely spot on. The vast majority of people ARE like you. If you live near the station, have a decent service, and even if the cost was higher than the bus, the train wins out. It just does. As you say, why spend twice as much time travelling on a bus when you can have an extra 15-30 mins in bed, and the cost is comparable. That extra hour per day is worth something to people.
I would also add that buses generally have an image problem. Plenty of people who would travel by train wouldn't be seen dead on a bus. I don't agree with it but it's true. One friend once said to me... "trains have a better class of nutter"
Scotstoun used to operate half of the 40. Not sure if it made the 60
Recall Scotstoun havinga few runs on the 44 , could be wrong. Scotstoun would need more deckers and drivers.
Definitely agree with the fact some people wouldn't be seen dead on a bus I have a friend like that although having grown up with 2 parents driving and trains being better for where her family stays I can understand it. I think another massive problem and not just for First is the over-reliance on subsidies. It's an expensive industry but let's be honest anyone knows that before getting into it and I wouldn't say it's the smartest mindset to have ever. All goes back to customer communication for me though. If you know exactly where everyone wants to go you'd have fewer issues with passenger numbers, therefore, relying on subsidies wouldn't really be needed. Yes, Glasgow is an extremely car-centric city but let's not pretend car usage increase has nothing to do with First being poor in a lot of peoples' eyes. Cleanliness, reliability, cost and the continual chopping of services have contributed. People need more reason to switch to the bus and First don't do anywhere near enough. There's a feeling of "I have to use First because I have no other option" a lot of the time whenever I get a bus even if the bus is on time and that's something First needs to get rid of by being so much better. The new stock has helped for a better journey but it was forced by LEZ and there's still a lot more to be done.
Another thing that I think there needs to be is a bit of route variety. There are some areas where all buses go to either one end of the city centre or places outside it. The claim may be "that's where people want to go" but how can First know that when people are forced to one place or don't consult customers at all? It's impossible for them to truly know.
Another thing that I think there needs to be is a bit of route variety. There are some areas where all buses go to either one end of the city centre or places outside it. The claim may be "that's where people want to go" but how can First know that when people are forced to one place or don't consult customers at all? It's impossible for them to truly know.
Last edited:
Scotstoun have never ran the 40, it was always a Parkhead based route. Scotstoun however may have ran some early morning runs that started in Clydebank. They definitely never ran half of it.
That's what I was thinking. I do remember the odd journey early morning being from Scotstoun but that's about it. The 40 was a pretty handy service granted the reliability was shocking. Would definitely say the 60 is even worse now though
Interesting ,i had that down as split , maybe getting mixed with the 62.
Around my area i feel like im one of the few i use the bus, and as a guy my age can sense the pity as wait .
Yeah my area is probably still one of the best used for buses and the amount of them we have shows that. I've sensed it in other areas when I've got the bus especially when it comes to routes like the 8/21/90. It's snobby people that make me glad I still get the bus to be honest. Means I don't need to deal with them by car
East Kilbride is bad for it . New housing estates in particularly .
Yeah definitely. There's tons of new housing popping up there especially near Kingsgate and Lindsayfield is like a whole new area compared to when the 16 ran to there.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Are First over-reliant on subsidies? What makes you say that? Other than those things that aren't subsidies (e.g. BSOG, concessionary remuneration, green bus funding), how much actual subsidy do they get?
I don't think anyone is doubting that First's ills in the past hardly did them any favours. I remember when First Bristol got some of the lovely W reg ex London ALXs that had manky seats and still retained the centre door bulkheads. So when you say "let's not pretend car usage increase has nothing to do with First being poor in a lot of peoples' eyes", then it probably is a contributory factor but by how much? When you look at the Scottish Transport Statistics, you see that from 1999-2017, traffic volume in Glasgow increased by 15%. However, up until 2011, it was broadly similar to Edinburgh (with all its lovely Lothian fleet). There was a very pronounced spike in 2011 that has continued to this day and you can work out what that is!
Of course, the continual chopping and changing of services is an issue and so that's probably why they are trying not to. Do it too much, it's unsettling. Do it too little, it promotes stagnation and complacency. It was ever thus. After the Simplicity changes and then the tweaks to get it right, a period of certainty is what it needed. It's great to see that First Glasgow have received much needed investment. Very much one of the chosen places in the First empire and yes, it is driven by the LEZ. Of course, many places are having to meet that sort of challenge without new fleet, such as Leicester.
Also, there is often this statement about buses running to the centre and not having serving peripheral areas. There's a reason for that. Buses are really good for large flows of traffic but can never cater for every permutation of every journey. Again, Glasgow is no different from many other cities and whilst it has routes like the 90, it is no surprise that the 38 takes more in an hour (probably) than the 90 takes in a day. The centre is the place where most people work, shop etc.
And in this world of "big data", organisations know more that you might think in terms of traffic flows.
Prices and the increases over the years definitely hint towards reliance on concessionary remuneration anyway. In terms of First's issues leading to car use increasing, I'd say it's still a 15/20% increase, especially over a 10/15 year period. The thing with the data showing traffic flows of where people get on and off buses is that some people are forced to get off in those specific stops. It doesn't consider where people would actually like to have an option to go and that's why getting far more customer feedback could definitely work in more ways than one. The 90 is a great example too because it's been clear as day for years that the route is far far too big to be reliable. It was late a lot when there was less congestion and traffic so you can imagine what it's like now. It's probably about 10 years too late in terms of a route split for it to be used far more now because there are customers they could have had that have been forced into other options. First definitely have the capabilities to pull off some very great changes(The One and 77 etc) but customer feedback could give them way more opportunities like that and within the population of Glasgow I'm sure there's plenty of workable suggestions out there but if the company don't go looking for them then more progress can't be made. All it would really take is 2/3 people on a social media team at Caley to provide customers with the help they need to make people less frustrated and more likely to use the bus. Talking what 30/45k in wages to generate a better relationship with customers that could bring in so much more in income and customers. I've seen worse gambles especially when you look at Stagecoach and Scotrail in particular. Stagecoach over feedback opportunities with every change they make, First do it in other areas but weirdly not Glasgow and Scotrail have a great Twitter team who respond very quickly and provide far more help than First do
Last edited:
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Sorry but I don't think you understand the issue with concessionary fares and remuneration. It's an industry wide problem in that concessionary fares make up a substantial part of the ridership (because it's free and so elasticity of demand goes). The scheme is mandatory and operators are paid according to a formula based on single fares. Hence why single fares get increased but they try to mitigate this by having week/month/annual tickets.
As for your statement of "I'd say it's still a 15/20% increase, especially over a 10/15 year period", you haven't grasped the significance of 2011. Up until that time, car usage was increasing in Glasgow at the same rate as Edinburgh, whose buses are generally accorded as being much better. Ask yourself why? Level pegging until 2011, and then it shot up in Glasgow....why?
As for traffic flows, again the information isn't just about bus passengers but traffic flows on a wider basis so you can see where people are travelling. For bus passengers, the joy of m-tickets and the data they bring is that they now show much more accurately where people are travelling to.
Also, I question if employing 2/3 people is possible for a cost of £30k/£45k. Think you may have undercosted that!
It's impossible for me not to understand the concession issues as they've been mentioned to death on forums on here since I've used this. Still ignoring what I'm saying about potential customers and where they want to go. M-tickets wouldn't show where people not using the bus want to go and still shows why more needs to be done to find out. Would make the chances of some services being successful far higher. As for car usage the cost increases of buses have started to come more frequently here in recent years whereas car costs haven't actually changed much especially fuel costs. Quality of Lothian Buses in Edinburgh is definitely better than First in terms of cost, reliability and cleanliness are here too so it would be far more likely for people to switch too. As far as staffing costs say someone was on 16/17k that's still only 51k if 3 were employed and my figure was based off of 15k which was still more than I got in my last job which was full time
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
In which case, you know why single fares are as they are and why concessionary remuneration is as important as it is. I'm sure every operator would prefer not to penalise casual users and have the scheme properly funded.
Didn't ignore as I made the clear distinction between bus passengers and the wider populace
Now you've ignored what I said about 2011. Prior to 2011, the increase in car usage was the SAME in both Edinburgh and Glasgow yet we all know that the respective quality of operators was much better in Edinburgh. I ask you again...why the change?
What you receive and what it costs an employer to employ someone is much different. You have to factor in NICS, Auto enrolment, ELI and even sickness and training costs - all costs that mean your £15k (which looks low anyway) is actually much higher.
Read my answer again and you'll see the clear mention of First in Glasgow and Lothian in Edinburgh. Those 3 things are massive. If you didn't ignore my point either you'd see where First really do need to up the game with customer feedback and route desires. That's the problem with the whole scheme and that mentality too. First's customer numbers fall because of penalising the wrong people. Its part of the industry so they need to just get on with it and accept it. Would as many have walked away if cost was cheaper? Clearly no. First get branded as overly expensive quite frequently here especially on social media and it doesn't have to be as high. Shouldn't ever have went above £2 for a single and £4 an all day and I've noticed a lot that buses near me got quieter when the fares went above those levels. Even if it was 100/120k it's still not the biggest risk to take on something that's important in any business these days. If you run a business that operates to serve the public then failing to take on board what the public think is a big failure
Anyway back to what this forum was originally about. Suggestions within reason which I know there's a good few out there.
The one that I wonder about is putting the 60 back through Great Western Retail Park. Few new things there that would make it more attractive than it used to be. Still remember the days of the 40, 42 and 42A going through there
The one that I wonder about is putting the 60 back through Great Western Retail Park. Few new things there that would make it more attractive than it used to be. Still remember the days of the 40, 42 and 42A going through there
- Status