Things that annoy you on bus and coach journeys

[vicbury]

First do the same with single fares, only having day fares and longer on their websites. That is why it came as a shock that Heathrow to Slough on the 75/76 was £4.60, I only had £3.15 at the time (and when I did go on it eventually l went for the £6 day ticket).

I believe First's app will give you the price of a journey when you plan a journey. Also for places with flat fares (such as Bath) they now give the price of a single online although I appreciate that flat fares are still the exception rather than the norm.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Frustrating that may be, but a professional driver waits time and does not run early, as that could cause a passenger to miss the bus. Congratulations to that driver, IMO - many would have run early and someone may have missed the bus if wishing to board it on one of the open-road stops. It's quite possible the timetable was a little slack and by "keeping things moving" he would have run early.

Neil

The driver having a rant as 61653 got off the bus doesn't sound very professional or deserving of congratulations.

No, indeed not that. However he was right to wait for time, and 61653 did not have a valid complaint about him doing so provided arrival was not delayed.

A more professional response from the driver would have been "I'm afraid I am strictly not allowed to run early so I can't do that" or something.

Neil

I agree with Neil Williams. I travel mainly off peak and have known bus drivers wait at stops, particularly in rural areas, until several minutes after the timetabled departure time. A few miles further on the bus is usually back on time.

Most drivers know the real running time for journeys. If there is nowhere safe to park up at the next few stops it is reasonable for the driver to leave a stop late to ensure he/she does not subsequently run early.

It does not excuse the driver's rudeness but I would not make a complaint myself in the circumstances.

If you read my original post, Neil, you'll see that I did indeed ask the driver if he was running early which he said he wasn't. The 435 is an awkward route especially in the evenings so it is understandable that drivers have to wait for time every now and then. As it turned out, the next passengers to board did so at the stop I got off at, so he could have waited there (in civilisation) without anyone being inconvenienced. My problem with this driver's conduct was the fact that he contradicted himself when I asked him, and (based on his rant as I alighted) took my perfectly reasonable questions to heart. Fair enough perhaps he'd had a tough day, and I know bus drivers get a lot of unwarranted abuse... This was something I bore in mind when deciding not to make a complaint.

 

[pompeyfan]

Change vouchers are an incredibly customer -unfriendly way of addressing the issue as it then means the customer has to make a special trip just to recover their own money. Do you really think that Tesco would get away with such an approach? It is surely possible to have equipment that will securely hold change on a bus and dispense it to passengers in response to the amount typed in by the driver. After all , self service till in supermarkets effectively do the sane thing.

That would work if the driver kept the same bus all day and was cashed up at the end of the day, but drivers can often drive 3/4 buses a day, in that respect bus drivers are like waitresses/waiters in big chain restaurants. The ticket machine tells the driver how much he/she has taken, and how much they should pay in at the end of the day. Contactless card payment is the way forward in my eyes.

As I explained above as well, a bus isn't like a shop environment, if anything I'd class a bus more like a train service. Would you buy a £1.65 single fare from a guard with a £20? I don't think many people would, but it's seen as perfectly acceptable on a bus. I do agree however that change vouchers are unfriendly, and in the depot they're seen as a deterrent, so much so that if you threaten a passenger with a change voucher they usually mysteriously pull out pound coins close to the fare.

It also doesn't help that my employer doesn't allow other drivers to cash in the voucher if they physically can do. I'd have no problem exchanging an £8 voucher if I could comfortably cover it, but company policy is travel shops deal with cash. Even if someone boards and asks for a day ticket using the voucher, any further credit on the voucher must be re-issued on a change voucher.... Madness.

 

[Class 33]

People talking on their mobiles. Particularly people who talk LOUDLY, and people that babble on and on and on, either to the same person or to several people.

People who play music/video clips through their iPhone/Tablet(or whatever) through the speakers and not using earphones. Just because they like that music( or video clips or whatever), it doesn't mean the whole bus want to hear it!! Most of the time it tends to be crap music as well, either some trashy rap music with loads of swearing or crappy r 'n b music! Very rarely is it ever any decent music!

 

[neilmc]

Running early - last week I was on a Stagecoach Manchester bus and as I went to alight a message came through from control on the radio telling Wilmslow Road bus drivers to run 3 minutes early (temporary lights in Withington causing tailbacks). Admittedly I don't know whether that also applied to less frequent services like the X41 or X57, if it did I'd be very cross as a passenger if I missed one as a result!

 

[PermitToTravel]

I'd guess they only meant 41-43 and 141-143, Stagecoach or Magic branded. As you say it wouldn't make any sense to do that to anyone heading to destinations not on Oxford/Wilmslow Road

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd guess they only meant 41-43 and 141-143, Stagecoach or Magic branded. As you say it wouldn't make any sense to do that to anyone heading to destinations not on Oxford/Wilmslow Road

Doesn't make sense in either case - the 40s split to several destinations, some of them not served very frequently.

They should simply have run late.

Neil

 

[Busaholic]

Doesn't make sense in either case - the 40s split to several destinations, some of them not served very frequently.

They should simply have run late.

Neil

In the Church of the Traffic Commissioner, whose writ even extends to Greater Manchester, running early is a Mortal Sin and no excuse for it can be proffered, let alone accepted. Drivers should take it up with their unions if aggrieved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the Church of the Traffic Commissioner, whose writ even extends to Greater Manchester, running early is a Mortal Sin and no excuse for it can be proffered, let alone accepted.

While you may be in jest with the above, I agree. Always better to run a little late instead if on-time is not possible, that way nobody will miss the bus.

The only way I would consider it acceptable to run early would be if waiting time at a timing point was dangerous for some reason (e.g. the stop was blocked with a broken down vehicle), and in that case I would expect the bus to wait for time as soon as it reaches the next safe point on the route. If that wasn't just a one off situation, I would expect[1] notice to change the timing point to be submitted pretty sharpish to remove the problem, and in the meantime temporary notices posted on the stops as a warning.

If an operator does not wish a service to wait time, they always have the option of registering it as set-down only on request to the driver, which probably makes sense on some evening routes out of town centres where there is little or no intermediate demand.

[1] Think it appropriate, I actually wouldn't *expect* it IYSWIM.

Neil

 

[jon0844]

Don't ever come to Hatfield Neil, where running early still happens even with buses fitted with tracking equipment.

I've noticed in recent weeks that Uno Tweet quite regularly that their tracking systems have gone down so they can't trace buses, often when asked where a bus is with the assumption it ran early. I also discovered that the time can be out by as much as 8 minutes on some terminals, which screwed up the use of m-tickets as if the barcode time doesn't match the machine time, it says it's invalid.

I wonder if they can manipulate the data in case the council requests it, or indeed if the council ever does request the data following a complaint - or, as I think they should, doing regular random inspections of data.

Some drivers are good though. In fact, quite a lot of them, but I can't choose the driver when wishing to travel and they rotate from route to route all the time, so it's rarely the same one except perhaps at night (and, sadly, over the years, some of those weren't the good ones - prompting me to miss buses as they left up to 5 minutes early).

 

[Martin2012]

Another slight annoyance that I do have is the way bus drivers wait ages for elderly passengers to sit down but zoom off before everyone else has had a chance to take their seat. Particularly when its a double decker and there are several people climbing the stairs to the top deck.

When I was at university last year, a lot of the bus drivers that served my halls of residence were notorious for doing that. They'd zoom away from the bus stop as soon as the last passenger had boarded and whilst people were still going up the stairs to the top deck.

Does anyone have any suggestion as to why drivers don't wait for everybody to sit down?

 

[Deerfold]

Does anyone have any suggestion as to why drivers don't wait for everybody to sit down?

Because they're trying to keep to time? A lot of bus routes have very tight timetables.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does anyone have any suggestion as to why drivers don't wait for everybody to sit down?

Because with a stop every few hundred yards it would make the service very slow?

The "binary throttle" issue is a separate one, but as I've never driven a full-size bus this may well be a vehicle rather than a driver issue.

Neil

 

[Busaholic]

While you may be in jest with the above, I agree. Always better to run a little late instead if on-time is not possible, that way nobody will miss the bus.

The only way I would consider it acceptable to run early would be if waiting time at a timing point was dangerous for some reason (e.g. the stop was blocked with a broken down vehicle), and in that case I would expect the bus to wait for time as soon as it reaches the next safe point on the route. If that wasn't just a one off situation, I would expect[1] notice to change the timing point to be submitted pretty sharpish to remove the problem, and in the meantime temporary notices posted on the stops as a warning.

If an operator does not wish a service to wait time, they always have the option of registering it as set-down only on request to the driver, which probably makes sense on some evening routes out of town centres where there is little or no intermediate demand.

[1] Think it appropriate, I actually wouldn't *expect* it IYSWIM.

Neil

The premise was true - the TCs consider there are no circumstances in which early running can be justified. At present one minute early on a regular basis is not considered actionable, but proposed new guidelines out for discussion do not even give this leeway. Of course, until all buses have 'real time' available to them rather than the driver's mickey mouse watch given to him by Auntie Gladys....

 

[Tom B]

Here's an interesting one, though:

A route operates every 10 minutes with departures due at 1.0, 1.10, 1.20, 1.30, 1.40pm etc.

The 1.10 is cancelled because the bus breaks down/ there's a shortage of drivers/ any other excuse the company chooses to use.

The bus due to run the 1.20 turns up. If he leaves at 1.20, he will consider himself to be "on time", but everyone else will consider him to be 10 minutes late (obviously, nobody cares as to the precise reason that the buses are out - the timetable says 1.10 but the bus doesn't leave till 1.20. This doesn't stop the driver from protesting to anyone who dares complain about standing in the pouring rain that he's running perfectly on time, perhaps waving a running board for emphasis).

However, let's say the driver is instructed to leave at 1.15, to provide an even interval between the two buses either side. He will think he's running 5 minutes early, although to passengers he is actually 5 minutes late. What is the actual ruling?

 

[Robertj21a]

Here's an interesting one, though:

A route operates every 10 minutes with departures due at 1.0, 1.10, 1.20, 1.30, 1.40pm etc.

The 1.10 is cancelled because the bus breaks down/ there's a shortage of drivers/ any other excuse the company chooses to use.

The bus due to run the 1.20 turns up. If he leaves at 1.20, he will consider himself to be "on time", but everyone else will consider him to be 10 minutes late (obviously, nobody cares as to the precise reason that the buses are out - the timetable says 1.10 but the bus doesn't leave till 1.20. This doesn't stop the driver from protesting to anyone who dares complain about standing in the pouring rain that he's running perfectly on time, perhaps waving a running board for emphasis).

However, let's say the driver is instructed to leave at 1.15, to provide an even interval between the two buses either side. He will think he's running 5 minutes early, although to passengers he is actually 5 minutes late. What is the actual ruling?

He's running 5 minutes early.

 

[Tom B]

Do the TC's inspectors have details of running boards, etc? If not how is he to tell whether the bus which leaves at 1.15 is the 1.10 running 5 late (the 1.20 having been cancelled) or the 1.20 running 5 early (the 1.10 having been cancelled). Is it possible for a company Inspector to (hypothetically) instruct the driver of the 1.20 to follow the schedule of the 1.10 for that trip, in which case he is running 5 minutes late?.

(I realise that the prospect of A) any bus company Inspector being proactive and B) the TC actually checking companies are running to time are both such remote possibilities that they're unlikely to co-incide!).

This happens on 'frequent' routes on London, where drivers are instructed to slow down or make up time so as to even out the headways, just wondered if it could hypothetically work on lower frequency services.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Here's an interesting one, though:

A route operates every 10 minutes with departures due at 1.0, 1.10, 1.20, 1.30, 1.40pm etc.

The 1.10 is cancelled because the bus breaks down/ there's a shortage of drivers/ any other excuse the company chooses to use.

The bus due to run the 1.20 turns up. If he leaves at 1.20, he will consider himself to be "on time", but everyone else will consider him to be 10 minutes late (obviously, nobody cares as to the precise reason that the buses are out - the timetable says 1.10 but the bus doesn't leave till 1.20. This doesn't stop the driver from protesting to anyone who dares complain about standing in the pouring rain that he's running perfectly on time, perhaps waving a running board for emphasis).

However, let's say the driver is instructed to leave at 1.15, to provide an even interval between the two buses either side. He will think he's running 5 minutes early, although to passengers he is actually 5 minutes late. What is the actual ruling?

But no one will miss the bus if that driver follows the timetable. Were the driver to run 5 early and someone arrive at a stop at 1:16......

 

[Busaholic]

Do the TC's inspectors have details of running boards, etc? If not how is he to tell whether the bus which leaves at 1.15 is the 1.10 running 5 late (the 1.20 having been cancelled) or the 1.20 running 5 early (the 1.10 having been cancelled). Is it possible for a company Inspector to (hypothetically) instruct the driver of the 1.20 to follow the schedule of the 1.10 for that trip, in which case he is running 5 minutes late?.

(I realise that the prospect of A) any bus company Inspector being proactive and B) the TC actually checking companies are running to time are both such remote possibilities that they're unlikely to co-incide!).

This happens on 'frequent' routes on London, where drivers are instructed to slow down or make up time so as to even out the headways, just wondered if it could hypothetically work on lower frequency services.

The Traffic Commissioners define a 'high frequency' service as one running every ten minutes or higher and imply in their directions that a timetable for every journey does not have to be available to the public, so they would be most unlikely to get involved with issues of early running there. On lower frequencies, and assuming any checks are NOT being done with the operator's prior knowledge, they will have the approved route registration and detailed timetable therein and, with experience, should be able to establish what is going on.

The T.C. will get involved if public dissatisfaction is being voiced, especially if it is specifically brought to their attention. I don't think it can be denied that they might get quicker involved in the case of a new(ish) operator or one already known to them for trangressions for the simple reason that symptoms of something more seriously awry may be being shown. So big operators do get more leeway, but if thought they are trading on that then they might be in for a shock!

Lastly, as almost always in public transport terms, London is the exception and the TC'S sway does not apply here.

 

[quarella]

Do the TC's inspectors have details of running boards, etc? If not how is he to tell whether the bus which leaves at 1.15 is the 1.10 running 5 late (the 1.20 having been cancelled) or the 1.20 running 5 early (the 1.10 having been cancelled). Is it possible for a company Inspector to (hypothetically) instruct the driver of the 1.20 to follow the schedule of the 1.10 for that trip, in which case he is running 5 minutes late?.

(I realise that the prospect of A) any bus company Inspector being proactive and B) the TC actually checking companies are running to time are both such remote possibilities that they're unlikely to co-incide!).

I have mentioned before the Bus enthusiast Inspector from the Council out checking subsidised routes. By numberplate he realised that 2 buses were being used where the contract stipulated 3. As I recall this was achieved by a minor reworking of how an estate at the end of the route was served. A creative operator from the early days of privatisation.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Doesn't make sense in either case - the 40s split to several destinations, some of them not served very frequently.

They should simply have run late.

Neil

You're right - I forget there's a world beyond Didsbury sometimes!

In reflection the "high frequency service" rules mentioned above sound wholly sensible and a good way of managing the issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In reflection the "high frequency service" rules mentioned above sound wholly sensible and a good way of managing the issue.

TBH I think in a sensible world they would look to reduce the service down so it is just a 42 and perhaps a couple of odd-numbered variants that turn right at Withington, sending everything else down parallel routes e.g. extending the 50 to Stockport, then it could viably be run as a proper high frequency route, just feeding buses in at one end as makes sense to maintain the service.

Would be a good route for bendy buses with off-bus ticketing as a pseudo-tram.

Neil

 

[Martin2012]

That does make sense. I do feel however that if they are departing a stop where a significant number of people have boarded , they should wait until everybody has taken their seats before moving off from the stop

Because they're trying to keep to time? A lot of bus routes have very tight timetables.

 

[quarella]

That does make sense. I do feel however that if they are departing a stop where a significant number of people have boarded , they should wait until everybody has taken their seats before moving off from the stop

Do you wait for Phyllis who has just boarded to finish her chat with Doris who was alreaday on board. Ethel and Sidney to sort out who is going to sit by the window. Chardonnay to get Tristram in one seat and sat down instead of letting him try every single available seat.

It is an impossible situation. Earlier in the thread we had complaints about buses dawdling and waiting time, now going too fast. This could be solved by writing timetables that vary according to the traffic conditions but passengers want something simple that says the bus should be at a stop at 24 minutes past the hour. When the 0824 arrives at 0832 it allows them to delay it further by having a go at the driver even if they have been able to watch it's slow progress for some time in the queue passing before them.

Furthermore there is now have the conflict of trying to run a reliable bus service that is accesible to all. Mobility (upper and lower limb), communication skills etc can all affect the time keeping of the service. I was on a bus in San Francisco a few years ago which had a number of wheelchairs boarding and alighting. I estimate 15-20 minutes were lost in ramp deployment etc. We were certainly overtaken by 2 buses on the same route. Should that be built into the timetable?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I believe First's app will give you the price of a journey when you plan a journey. Also for places with flat fares (such as Bath) they now give the price of a single online although I appreciate that flat fares are still the exception rather than the norm.

It simply depends on where you are. Same with Stagecoach. There is no consistency at all between operators that are owned by the same company. I believe Stagecoach in Manchester produce detailed tables with the prices for different stops etc (or at least the did 2 years ago). Yet Stagecoach in South Wales have no ticketing prices apart from day / week tickets etc. It is madness.

 

[johntea]

A route operates every 10 minutes with departures due at 1.0, 1.10, 1.20, 1.30, 1.40pm etc.

This is something else that drives me up the wall. 'We run a bus every 10 minutes!'

What they fail to point out is these buses get stuck in traffic so typically every 20 minutes 2 turn up at once making the exercise completely pointless!

 

[Tom B]

There are also timetables which state frequencies of "about every 2-10 minutes" which perhaps neglect to mention that the norm is every 10! And others which could be more usefully re-phrased - the W7, for instance, was advertised as "every 3-10 minutes" - it runs every 3 minutes in the peak, 6 minutes offpeak, 10 minutes in the evening.

The Traffic Commissioners define a 'high frequency' service as one running every ten minutes or higher and imply in their directions that a timetable for every journey does not have to be available to the public, so they would be most unlikely to get involved with issues of early running there. On lower frequencies, and assuming any checks are NOT being done with the operator's prior knowledge, they will have the approved route registration and detailed timetable therein and, with experience, should be able to establish what is going on.

Thanks for that. I presume that if a company were to be extending headways beyond 10 minutes where they had registered it as, say, every 4, they would still be in hot water.

I'm assuming that running numbers do not have to be registered with the TC as they are theoretically not interested in the company's own scheduling of vehicles so long as A vehicle turns up at the specified time - regardless of whether it is the one planned to be there or not". Few companies display running numbers outwith London. I remember Lothian used to print the block number in large letters on the back of the running board and it was often habit for 22s drivers to have it in the windscreen visible, and for drivers being relieved to wave it triumphantly when pulling in to the relief point.

 

[Deerfold]

Thanks for that. I presume that if a company were to be extending headways beyond 10 minutes where they had registered it as, say, every 4, they would still be in hot water.

I believe so.

Once they've registered a service as being frequent they're free to muck around with the timetable as much as they like so long as it remains frequent without updating their registration - I've seen registrations extending the non-frequent section of time where changes have resulted in some extended headways.

 

[90019]

I remember Lothian used to print the block number in large letters on the back of the running board and it was often habit for 22s drivers to have it in the windscreen visible, and for drivers being relieved to wave it triumphantly when pulling in to the relief point.

The block number is still on the back of the running board.
Part of the reason they did that on the 22 while it was still single deck was due to so many of them running together because of the frequency, so you could sometimes have four different drivers waiting at Elm Row, and it meant they could see if it was their bus or not.
I use them for that occasionally, usually when there's disruption and buses running together.

 

[londonbridge]

Back on things you find annoying, one of mine is people who take a seat and then spend the entire journey with their arm extended horizontally, gripping the handrail or the back of the seat in front. Fine to grab the handrail for a bit of stability when the bus is turning, but no need to do it when moving ahead in a straight line in normal traffic.