|
Post by www.buseireann.ie on Jun 29, 2016 21:22:59 GMT 1
I feel really sorry for LOT, all they're doing wrong is not operating a bus route nobody uses, only the odd sad idiot! It's like some on here are saying 'because your women with what we feel is a badly named bus firm using buses we don't like, we're gonna make you run a bus service we know makes a big loss and nobody uses or if you don't, we'll harass you with the Traffic Commissioner, we couldn't give a toss that all the other bus routes run quite well, we hate you because you run pink love hearts on wheels and we are men', I've never heard such harassment over ONE frigging useless hardly used bus route! Yorkshire Tiger recently tweeted that several journeys on the number 59 wouldn't run, they became a bit famous in the Halifax area for a while for tweeting local journeys wouldn't run but nobody threatened them with the TC or beat them to a pulp on here! Give them a f**k**g break you armchair warriors, They've made a massive mistake taking the 711 useless twatting service on, but that's Metro for you, they don't want to turn round to the odd moaning tosser and tell them the 711 doesn't work, it's not profitable, it's not needed!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by pub146g on Jun 29, 2016 21:43:35 GMT 1
Have to agree that there does appear to be a certain amount of 'witchunting' going on here, probably because the operator doesn't run the type of bus THEY prefer. Whilst I'm not condoning LOTs failure to operate the 711 I do think the amount of 'hullaballoo' on here is way OTT.
I think the fact it went from Geldards to Tiger then LOT in a short space of time proves it wasn't really a required service, I'm just suprised it wasn't 'pulled' earlier.
|
|
|
Post by mutty on Jun 29, 2016 23:38:51 GMT 1
Have to agree that there does appear to be a certain amount of 'witchunting' going on here, probably because the operator doesn't run the type of bus THEY prefer. Whilst I'm not condoning LOTs failure to operate the 711 I do think the amount of 'hullaballoo' on here is way OTT. I think the fact it went from Geldards to Tiger then LOT in a short space of time proves it wasn't really a required service, I'm just suprised it wasn't 'pulled' earlier. They use bread vans for buses, they cancel services ( 711 ) cos they are losing money on it, then make out its due to breakdowns, yet it was them who wanted to run it, just an overall amateur bus(van) firm if you ask me
|
|
|
Post by pub146g on Jun 30, 2016 0:01:12 GMT 1
Have to agree that there does appear to be a certain amount of 'witchunting' going on here, probably because the operator doesn't run the type of bus THEY prefer. Whilst I'm not condoning LOTs failure to operate the 711 I do think the amount of 'hullaballoo' on here is way OTT. I think the fact it went from Geldards to Tiger then LOT in a short space of time proves it wasn't really a required service, I'm just suprised it wasn't 'pulled' earlier. They use bread vans for buses, they cancel services ( 711 ) cos they are losing money on it, then make out its due to breakdowns, yet it was them who wanted to run it, just an overall amateur bus(van) firm if you ask me They don't operate bread vans for buses, the fleet is mainly Primos, Solos and one (I think) VW Transporter and I suspect this is the crux of why people come out with comments such as yours, it's the fact they don't like Primos so will resort to childish 'slagging off' in order to rubbish the operator. While Plaxton Primos aren't everyones cup of tea, I'm actually not a great fan but they do the job, people need to realise that buses of that size suit certain operators, it's horses for courses, most of their services don't require anything bigger. Certainly when I've caught the 781 a couple of times I don't see the other passengers boarding and saying "Oh god it's a Primo", only enthusiasts would make such a comment. People choose to be enthusiasts for whatever reason, which is fine, but it doesn't entitle the said person to become an armchair critic of the type of bus an operator chooses to use unless of course they have good reason to show why they aren't suitable. Because ultimately that's what I think all this is about, it's the fact some people don't like small buses and so go 'on and on' about it, the negativity in this thread started before the 711 issue. Incidentally, the whole 711 thing is getting tiresome, as I've said earlier it's obviously a service that's not necessary - this was Tigers reason for withdrawing it, taken from their website: Service 711 - Unfortunately, due to insufficient passenger use on this service, Yorkshire Tiger will be withdrawing this service in its entirety, with the last day of service being Saturday 20th February 2016. Metro are currently looking at the passenger information that we have provided to them and speaking to other bus operators who may wish to reinstate some or all of the journeys
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Jun 30, 2016 0:45:23 GMT 1
I feel really sorry for LOT, all they're doing wrong is not operating a bus route nobody uses, only the odd sad idiot! It's like some on here are saying 'because your women with what we feel is a badly named bus firm using buses we don't like, we're gonna make you run a bus service we know makes a big loss and nobody uses or if you don't, we'll harass you with the Traffic Commissioner, we couldn't give a toss that all the other bus routes run quite well, we hate you because you run pink love hearts on wheels and we are men', I've never heard such harassment over ONE frigging useless hardly used bus route! Yorkshire Tiger recently tweeted that several journeys on the number 59 wouldn't run, they became a bit famous in the Halifax area for a while for tweeting local journeys wouldn't run but nobody threatened them with the TC or beat them to a pulp on here! Give them a f**k**g break you armchair warriors, They've made a massive mistake taking the 711 useless twatting service on, but that's Metro for you, they don't want to turn round to the odd moaning tosser and tell them the 711 doesn't work, it's not profitable, it's not needed!!!!! Wow, you do get wound up, don't you? What worries me, is if they're not worried about following this legal requirement, what other legal requirements might they be ignoring because they're annoying or cost money. I'm unimpressed with Yorkshire Tiger failing to run journeys which have resulted in relatives waiting over an hour for a bus that's supposed to run every 20 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Jun 30, 2016 9:37:12 GMT 1
Wow, you do get wound up, don't you? What worries me, is if they're not worried about following this legal requirement, what other legal requirements might they be ignoring because they're annoying or cost money. I'm unimpressed with Yorkshire Tiger failing to run journeys which have resulted in relatives waiting over an hour for a bus that's supposed to run every 20 minutes. Every bus operator has been in the position at some point, having to chose what services to run and what to lose as the have a bad period for vehicle availability and in those cases it is fairly normal to prioritise tendered work over commercial (apart from anything else the structure of tendered contracts & processes push towards this) and given the service in question has no future as it is already due for withdrawal there is little priority in sorting an issue that will be sorted in a few weeks anyway (hiring buses is a very expensive way to run a business and if you are already losing money it is a good way to go bust quickly). It is not that these scenarios arise once, it is if they keep occurring, if they are widespread across the company or if the problems persist without any clear plan to fix it. In LOTs case the rest of their operation appears to be running normally (the odd breakdown is to be expected), the issue has only arisen relatively recently and the service in question has already been cancelled so the plan is there. There is no reason to feel that a short term vehicle availability issue has any greater significance than that. For the TCs to take action they need to have reliable evidence, they may use Social Media to identify someone to look at and they have used it during a hearing as evidence of how representative the monitoring was but they don't take action solely based on it, they would need a report completed after a monitoring exercise by a DVSA Inspector. This is not a quick process to complete, even if the monitor has already been out and checked them, the report would need to be submitted & assessed by the TC before it went further which would take some weeks. Even then you, as a outsider to the parties involved, may never hear of it as the TC will often call an operator in (especially if it is their first issue and if the matter is not safety critical such as service delivery) to a less formal meeting to go through the problem which can avoid the need for an expensive hearing (doesn't mean that no action is taken just that it involves warnings & undertakings rather than fines & curtailments). If the TCs were to start taking action against every journey lost (there is an allowance for a small amount of lost mileage which is calculated on a percentage of the number of journeys monitored) based solely on social media then all that would happen is that operators would stop reporting lost journeys in public like that. There is a requirement that 95% of services operate between 1 min early & 5 min late, they are not considered to have not run if they are outside this window that is a different metric (though a journey running with incorrect or no destination blind is considered to have not run on the principle that passengers would not know it was the bus). The TC will consider unusual circumstances which couldn't be forseen (engineering issues causing vehicle unavailability as this seems to be would not be one of those) and this is then assessed based on the how bad it is and the explanations (there is no fixed assessment calculation as all circumstances are different including how extensive the monitoring was against what is run). If the TC decides action will be taken they can levy a fine of up to £550 per vehicle license allowed (not actually used but authorised) which, again, can be reduced if the extenuating circumstances are accepted and/or the TC can impose restrictions on the license or curtail the vehicle allowance if the matter is more severe or the operator is a repeat offender.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Jun 30, 2016 10:01:56 GMT 1
I'm not sure I'd regard a route that uses 2 buses having no journeys for 3 weeks as a short-term vehicle availability issue. It stinks of either extremely bad planning or an operator who doesn't care about the rules.
|
|
|
Post by www.buseireann.ie on Jun 30, 2016 17:41:17 GMT 1
We need to draw a line under the sand and end this once and for all, LOT made a mistake taking the 711 on, Metro should have realised the 711 was a dead joke and not asked another operator to take it on, more importantly I'm a bit suspicious about the passenger figures presented to LOT as no operator in their right mind should have taken on a service from a city with a new shopping centre to an urban part of Leeds with a similar centre but 1 hour away, few people will want to use it, simple as that. One thing we can say is that if somebody else runs the 711, the words effing stupid idiots springs to mind!
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Jun 30, 2016 20:08:45 GMT 1
If I understand the situation correctly this service is run commercially, that's means at the operator's risk with no financial input from Metro. If I am correct then the operation or lack of is down to the operator and has nothing to do with Metro. Bottom line operators problem not Metro's
|
|
|
Post by kommie123 on Jul 2, 2016 7:19:40 GMT 1
So when sgi ran buses every now and again, they got their licence revoked yet these cowboys haven't run an entire service for 3 weeks???! and get away with it.
Why not curtail it between Pudsey and the White Rose?
|
|
|
Post by tinrocket on Jul 2, 2016 9:12:31 GMT 1
I remember travelling on the 711 back in the early 2000s and it ran via Old Farnley. This would've given links from there to Pudsey and White Rose Centre not available nowadays. Unless this part of the route was withdrawn due to low passenger numbers, could the fact the service simply mirrors the number 9 between Pudsey and WRC have contributed to the fall in numbers?
I think it'd be a shame for it to go, but times change I suppose.
|
|
WYBS
Forum Member
Watch-o
Posts: 1,489
|
Post by WYBS on Jul 2, 2016 10:19:52 GMT 1
I remember travelling on the 711 back in the early 2000s and it ran via Old Farnley. This would've given links from there to Pudsey and White Rose Centre not available nowadays. Unless this part of the route was withdrawn due to low passenger numbers, could the fact the service simply mirrors the number 9 between Pudsey and WRC have contributed to the fall in numbers? I think it'd be a shame for it to go, but times change I suppose. But the 9 always seems to be packed between White Rose and Pudsey/ Horsforth (in that direction). So why was the 711 not working? Maybe lack of promotion, not enough people knowing about it? Fitting the 711 in between 9s to create a half hour frequency (and promoting it) surely would increase passenger numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Penfold on Jul 2, 2016 20:08:09 GMT 1
Without searching through all the post on here, just heard from a friend (who works for MyBus Wakefield) that LOT have picked up a school contract in the South Elmsall area. Is that more dead mileage or it that the one that is interworked with the 197 Hemsworth-Ryhill-Newstead shuttles ?
Penfold
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Jul 2, 2016 20:40:26 GMT 1
The 197 only runs 0945-1430, so I expect it'll interwork with that.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFell121 on Jul 2, 2016 21:11:13 GMT 1
Without searching through all the post on here, just heard from a friend (who works for MyBus Wakefield) that LOT have picked up a school contract in the South Elmsall area. Is that more dead mileage or it that the one that is interworked with the 197 Hemsworth-Ryhill-Newstead shuttles ? Penfold The school service is the S15 and is interworked with the 197
|
|
|
Post by Penfold on Jul 2, 2016 21:17:39 GMT 1
Without searching through all the post on here, just heard from a friend (who works for MyBus Wakefield) that LOT have picked up a school contract in the South Elmsall area. Is that more dead mileage or it that the one that is interworked with the 197 Hemsworth-Ryhill-Newstead shuttles ? Penfold The school service is the S15 and is interworked with the 197 S15 is the one he has mentioned so I must have missed it. Thanks Penfold
|
|
|
Post by mutty on Jul 2, 2016 21:45:09 GMT 1
Without searching through all the post on here, just heard from a friend (who works for MyBus Wakefield) that LOT have picked up a school contract in the South Elmsall area. Is that more dead mileage or it that the one that is interworked with the 197 Hemsworth-Ryhill-Newstead shuttles ? Penfold That'll be a lot of children late for school then, when they have their " vehicle breakdown issues " !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by pub146g on Jul 3, 2016 0:04:27 GMT 1
Without searching through all the post on here, just heard from a friend (who works for MyBus Wakefield) that LOT have picked up a school contract in the South Elmsall area. Is that more dead mileage or it that the one that is interworked with the 197 Hemsworth-Ryhill-Newstead shuttles ? Penfold That'll be a lot of children late for school then, when they have their " vehicle breakdown issues " !!!!! We can do well without your nonsensical posts thank you!
|
|
|
Post by 112jct41 on Jul 3, 2016 0:56:10 GMT 1
Without searching through all the post on here, just heard from a friend (who works for MyBus Wakefield) that LOT have picked up a school contract in the South Elmsall area. Is that more dead mileage or it that the one that is interworked with the 197 Hemsworth-Ryhill-Newstead shuttles ? Penfold That'll be a lot of children late for school then, when they have their " vehicle breakdown issues " !!!!! is that why there's never anything tweeted about the other school services they operate???
|
|
|
Post by Penfold on Jul 3, 2016 7:03:59 GMT 1
Without searching through all the post on here, just heard from a friend (who works for MyBus Wakefield) that LOT have picked up a school contract in the South Elmsall area. Is that more dead mileage or it that the one that is interworked with the 197 Hemsworth-Ryhill-Newstead shuttles ? Penfold That'll be a lot of children late for school then, when they have their " vehicle breakdown issues " !!!!! I was thinking more of a size issue especially if the breadvan turns up which I believe has been on the 197 shuttles all this week ! Penfold
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Jul 3, 2016 9:59:23 GMT 1
LOT have operated school services for years without any issue. C50, C60 & L73, so jokes that they won't turn up are misguided.
Presumably the S15 has a low number of passengers.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFell121 on Jul 3, 2016 11:31:45 GMT 1
That'll be a lot of children late for school then, when they have their " vehicle breakdown issues " !!!!! I was thinking more of a size issue especially if the breadvan turns up which I believe has been on the 197 shuttles all this week ! Penfold The VW LT which operates on the 197 was purchased specially for the S15. After having training with Metro, seems they requested that due to there being less than 15 kids using that service. It also has to be that as it is fitted with Seat belts
|
|
|
Post by mutty on Jul 3, 2016 12:19:46 GMT 1
I was thinking more of a size issue especially if the breadvan turns up which I believe has been on the 197 shuttles all this week ! Penfold The VW LT which operates on the 197 was purchased specially for the S15. After having training with Metro, seems they requested that due to there being less than 15 kids using that service. It also has to be that as it is fitted with Seat belts Still doesn't stop them sticking it on the 223 every Sunday , it hardly looks professional does it !
|
|
|
Post by 112jct41 on Jul 3, 2016 13:02:44 GMT 1
The VW LT which operates on the 197 was purchased specially for the S15. After having training with Metro, seems they requested that due to there being less than 15 kids using that service. It also has to be that as it is fitted with Seat belts Still doesn't stop them sticking it on the 223 every Sunday , it hardly looks professional does it ! the VW LT is not on 223 every sunday after that one off the other week its gone back to been a primo or solo running it. I should know as I live on part of the route and see it every sunday evening when out walking the dog.
|
|
|
Post by leeds rider on Jul 3, 2016 17:09:20 GMT 1
Still doesn't stop them sticking it on the 223 every Sunday , it hardly looks professional does it ! Professional is using the most appropriate tool for the task at hand. If the loadings on that route are low enough for a 15-seater to be sufficient, and the vehicle is properly licensed as a PSV, and it can keep to the timetable, and it has the lowest cost profile of the vehicles available, it seems like an eminently professional decision to use it.
|
|