Lothian Group discussion (Lothian City, Lothian Country Bus and East Coast Buses)

[overthewater]

I hope everyone enjoyed the nice weather but going but some reports in this thread they clearly did. Maybe East Coast buses needs to reinstate Summer Saturday X5 leaving around 18.30 to maybe Connect with X7 or X4 somewhere? or either that extend the 18.45 No124 journey to Edinburgh, there is clearly a demand for it. Maybe a idea for next summer?

Also, if you're unhappy with the way that Lothian is running things, have you made a complaint directly to the company?

Everyman and his dog has and its always he same reply, they will continue to monitor the situation....

Please don’t take any responses personally; it’s not directed in that way.

However, whilst healthy discussion is good on this forum some realism does have to be projected - otherwise everything on here would be purely fantasy. I’m also sure those who may not necessarily understand the intricate details of running a bus operation appreciate feedback from those in the know.

I’ve worked for multiple bus companies and can tell you now that they are just like any other business. Not all passengers will benefit from changes and you can’t please everyone all the time (as GusB pointed out), but the businesses position on those effected will be simply ‘tough luck’ - yes any valid points can be taken into account and adjusted at a further change, but not all will. Often you’ll also find it’s the inconvenienced few who’ll shout the loudest then blow things out of proportion (eg 26 Tranent).

Lothian Buses, whilst publicly owned, still needs to make a profit and keep its stake holders happy. They’re not fussed if a handful of people now have a longer journey to work or not - whilst that sounds bad, it’s just the way things are. Some bus companies are better at listening to customers than others granted. I’m also not saying Lothian are amazing and can do nothing wrong! They’re a very good bus company, but there’s always room for improvements.

Whilst generally unpopular on here, the X19 would have had a business case and this would have been taken to, and fully considered by the board before approval and launch. Just because the service is utilising X amount of buses and drivers, that doesn’t mean that resource would have been pumped in to prop up the greater country network had the X19 not got the go ahead. Yes, perhaps it might fail long term, but business is about trial and error.

I'm have been trying to be more realistic in any expectations if and when improvements were to be be made, moving forward any improvements would need to bolt on's and also a min cost, like lego bricks. There is a since of fantasy in the speculation thread, and some people seem to think a big bang will happen. There is no way the X27/X28 could go back to every 15mins at this moment of time that allow would require 5 extra buses, for no real impact.

Unfortunley the business cases created by Lothian country (LCB) haven't been great in the past have nor stood up to the test of time Ie Green arrow, being the most high profile. However that concept should and could have worked but the money was all wasted on those coaches. If the X19 doesn't work out and fails then the business cases being made up with LCB aren't worth the paper there written on.. There been getting things wrong for a while instead of doing the basic bread and butter.

I think the change of upper management has also not help the situation as they seem more relucted to have an way day adventure in almond valley..

There was long rumours of Lothian opening a 'mega-depot' in the Queen Margaret University area to replace Marine, Seafield and Musselburgh. No idea how much truth there was to this, probably very little, but a big argument for it was the Seafield developments the council are looking at which would likely see Marine and Seafield both demolished. With new developments at QMU progressing it seems unrealistic now that there would be a depot placed there, however it would be interesting to see where Lothian would consider opening a garage to replace Marine/Seafield should they have to. Any new garage incorporating East Coast buses would be fantastic for increasing capacity with how constrained Musselburgh is.

They must be plans somewhere for a new or addition depot if the talk is true the new electric charging point will reduce capacity for storage. If they were to sell Longstone, or Muss ( which was on the cards at on point) im sure they could get a housing company snapping up the land to help pay for new super depot somewhere else. Shame Lothian never brought Dalkieth depot instead of Morrisons.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I'm have been trying to be more realistic in any expectations if and when improvements were to be be made, moving forward any improvements would need to bolt on's and also a min cost, like lego bricks. There is a since of fantasy in the speculation thread, and some people seem to think a big bang will happen. There is no way the X27/X28 could go back to every 15mins at this moment of time that allow would require 5 extra buses, for no real impact.

As I said in the speculative page, it actually needs 3 extra for an increase to every 15 minutes, not 5.

2 runs are currently peak only which would be out all day so they don’t count towards it. You’d need them plus 3 full new runs, which is where the 13 to 18 comes from. In reality, it’s 15 to 18.

To me that is hardly unrealistic.

 

[ScotRail158725]

How much of 672-680 are at Longstone now 672 and 674 just rallied past me now on the 3

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

How much of 672-680 are at Longstone now 672 and 674 just rallied past me now on the 3

Four. 672-674 and 677.

675 remains at Ferrymill so I’m not sure what the plan is in terms of releasing a bus. 676 is having maintenance so I would expect 678-680 to move before the former two.

738 is at Seafield.

 

[ScotRail158725]

Four. 672-674 and 677.

675 remains at Ferrymill so I’m not sure what the plan is in terms of releasing a bus. 676 is having maintenance so I would expect 678-680 to move before the former two.

Is 675 still off? That crash didnt look a bad one either

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Is 675 still off? That crash didnt look a bad one either

Yes still at Ferrymill. It’s moved about the site a bit so hopefully it won’t be there for more months.

 

[Metal Mickey]

As I said in the speculative page, it actually needs 3 extra for an increase to every 15 minutes, not 5.

2 runs are currently peak only which would be out all day so they don’t count towards it. You’d need them plus 3 full new runs, which is where the 13 to 18 comes from. In reality, it’s 15 to 18.

To me that is hardly unrealistic.

Pre 2018, the PVR of the First 27/28 was 19. By then only the 28 extended to Bathgate in coordination with the 800 to form a 15 min freq between Bathgate and Livingston and the 27 terminated at Deans.

I dare say with an increase in traffic levels since Covid, to provide a similar frequency in today’s climate would cost more buses.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Pre 2018, the PVR of the First 27/28 was 19. By then only the 28 extended to Bathgate in coordination with the 800 to form a 15 min freq between Bathgate and Livingston and the 27 terminated at Deans.

I dare say with an increase in traffic levels since Covid, to provide a similar frequency in today’s climate would cost more buses.

The First 27/28 is slower than the Lothian Country equivalent. It currently operates fairly well on a circuit of 4 hours 20 minutes with short layovers, thus 13 buses at a 20 minute frequency. 2 extra buses on the X27 only are added in the peak as one way trips.

Increasing this to every 15 minutes would mean it would need to go up to a 4 hour 30 minute circuit and it would allow the layover to go up by 5 minutes at each end. Thus you get to a total of 18 buses needed. As I say, those peak extras wouldn’t be there. The slower journey in the peak would likely be offset by the fact the frequency will have dropped by the time buses start their returns. The opposite in the morning with the early peak.

 

[computerSaysNo]

Quote from the Midland Bluebird thread:

Remember, First did a huge network refresh in 2018, they did muck it up a fair bit and resulted in quite a bit of political pull from the council, MSP and MP. Lothian saw this as their opportunity to enter, then proceeded to chop and change the network so much in the first couple of years. There was a couple of examples of being that the council couldn’t subsidise routes in competition with commercial routes so pulled funding but then LCB pulled their route shortly after.

Wikipedia says West Lothian Council own 1% of the Lothian Buses umbrella company, but doesn't detail how that breaks down in the subsidiaries (i.e. how much of Lothian Country specifically). But I'm wondering: given that West Lothian Council own more than 0% of Lothian Country, they must have agreed with or at least chosen not to challenge the introduction of a timetable which they knew would provide competition to services which they themselves subsided? Or if the plan was to introduce commercial routes and cut the subsidy, they should have challenged the decision to pull that route after the subsidy funding had been cut, should they not?

 

[Simon75]

is North Bewick depot still in use, on Google maps doesn't look that big,look more like an outstation than a depot

 

[Bus9120UK]

That's the end of the Skylink livery in use with 506 and 507 both moving to Marine this evening, pending transfer to Seafield tomorrow. 676/8 have moved to Longstone and 394/6 have moved to Marine. Central is down a bus for now, 738 should bring it back up in August.

 

[318266]

Quote from the Midland Bluebird thread:

Wikipedia says West Lothian Council own 1% of the Lothian Buses umbrella company, but doesn't detail how that breaks down in the subsidiaries (i.e. how much of Lothian Country specifically). But I'm wondering: given that West Lothian Council own more than 0% of Lothian Country, they must have agreed with or at least chosen not to challenge the introduction of a timetable which they knew would provide competition to services which they themselves subsided? Or if the plan was to introduce commercial routes and cut the subsidy, they should have challenged the decision to pull that route after the subsidy funding had been cut, should they not?

I attach a self-made ownership diagram below. West Lothian Council own Lothian Buses, which 100% own Lothian Country. In effect, they own 1% of Lothian Country, 1% of Lothian Buses etc.

 

[stantheman]

395 on the 21 today so at Marine . Where is 393 haven’t seen it recently ?

 

[ScotRail158725]

395 on the 21 today so at Marine . Where is 393 haven’t seen it recently ?

393 is off the road been off for ages

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

395 on the 21 today so at Marine . Where is 393 haven’t seen it recently ?

393 is being covered at Marine by 698 due to ongoing maintenance. Once 393 is in a position to be able to move to Marine, it and 698 should swap with the latter returning to Central.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

That's the end of the Skylink livery in use with 506 and 507 both moving to Marine this evening, pending transfer to Seafield tomorrow. 676/8 have moved to Longstone and 394/6 have moved to Marine. Central is down a bus for now, 738 should bring it back up in August.

About time, I mean, as much as I liked the Skyline livery, it felt annoying to see the branding after the 17/18 was reintroduced, I get these repaints don't happen overnight but still

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

About time, I mean, as much as I liked the Skyline livery, it felt annoying to see the branding after the 17/18 was reintroduced, I get these repaints don't happen overnight but still

I think a lot of this has to do with the BZL delays. Had that not been the case, I’m sure that the Skylink’s would’ve gone when the 17/18 were brought in.

 

[stevenedin]

How many BZLs have now to enter service from the original batch?

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

How many BZLs have now to enter service from the original batch?

7.

726, 732, 735, 738, 741, 746 and 750.

738 is at Seafield. 726 and 746 are confirmed as being in the UK. 735, 741 and 746 were previously delivered as well, with only the latter’s location known. Leaves 732 and 750 as having no known information on them.

 

[overthewater]

I attach a self-made ownership diagram below. West Lothian Council own Lothian Buses, which 100% own Lothian Country. In effect, they own 1% of Lothian Country, 1% of Lothian Buses etc.

Maybe it time it was changed so its 5% to each of West, Mid and West Lothian Councils and 85% to Edinburgh city council?

 

[stevenedin]

7.

726, 732, 735, 738, 741, 746 and 750.

738 is at Seafield. 726 and 746 are confirmed as being in the UK. 735, 741 and 746 were previously delivered as well, with only the latter’s location known. Leaves 732 and 750 as having no known information on them.

Thanks

 

[scosutsut]

Noticed on Bus times a few of the Repowered Open Toppers have been out in service, I missed when they'd escaped into the wild - looks like from last week going on the timestamps on Flickr.

"Zero Emission Repowered" stickers applied above the front destination display and under the driver's cab window.

Absolute no brainer for these to be electric.

 

[Siemens Trains]

Quote from the Midland Bluebird thread:

Wikipedia says West Lothian Council own 1% of the Lothian Buses umbrella company, but doesn't detail how that breaks down in the subsidiaries (i.e. how much of Lothian Country specifically). But I'm wondering: given that West Lothian Council own more than 0% of Lothian Country, they must have agreed with or at least chosen not to challenge the introduction of a timetable which they knew would provide competition to services which they themselves subsided? Or if the plan was to introduce commercial routes and cut the subsidy, they should have challenged the decision to pull that route after the subsidy funding had been cut, should they not?

While it's frustrating for council accounts who set budgets annually while bus service gaps might appear almost monthly, I doubt they can interfere at that level. Councils should welcome subsidy cuts and encourage commercially sustainable routes.
Maybe the Traffic Commissioner could step in if routes were clearly only intended to damage another company rather than improve passenger choice. But it may be difficult to prove.

 

[Porty]

Maybe it time it was changed so its 5% to each of West, Mid and West Lothian Councils and 85% to Edinburgh city council?

But they would have to buy the relevant shares from Edinburgh City Council. Is this really a priority for spending, even if there was a willing seller.

 

[overthewater]

But they would have to buy the relevant shares from Edinburgh City Council. Is this really a priority for spending, even if there was a willing seller.

I doubt that would be the case since tech there were all giving them for free after the break up of the old Lothian Regional council, I'm still confused why they had the shares and not the old Edinburgh district council. It a public owned Private company they can do what they like with the shares. Whether Edinburgh CC would be willing to give up % is a different matter.

 

[GusB]

Maybe it time it was changed so its 5% to each of West, Mid and West Lothian Councils and 85% to Edinburgh city council?

But they would have to buy the relevant shares from Edinburgh City Council. Is this really a priority for spending, even if there was a willing seller.

@overthewater How do you propose that East, Mid and West Lothian councils increase their shareholding in Lothian Buses? I wouldn't be against such a move, especially as Lothian has expanded from its traditional city operations.

I doubt that would be the case since tech there were all giving them for free after the break up of the old Lothian Regional council, I'm still confused why they had the shares and not the old Edinburgh district council. It a public owned Private company they can do what they like with the shares. Whether Edinburgh CC would be willing to give up % is a different matter.

Responsibility for public transport lay with Lothian Regional Council prior to the 1996 local government re-organisation and it became the responsibility of the new unitary councils thereafter. I don't know how the shares of what was LRT were allocated (and I'd be interested to find out), but the old City of Edinburgh district council didn't have any say in the matter.

Could you explain what you mean by "since tech there were all giving them for free"? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Leedsbusman]

I doubt that would be the case since tech there were all giving them for free after the break up of the old Lothian Regional council, I'm still confused why they had the shares and not the old Edinburgh district council. It a public owned Private company they can do what they like with the shares. Whether Edinburgh CC would be willing to give up % is a different matter.

That a curious take on public finances and governance. The shares are worth a considerable amount of money (and generate a dividend) and it would be highly irresponsible for a council just to give them away to another. It is not clear what benefit such a shareholding change would bring.

 

[scosutsut]

Also East Lothian Council have the distinction of being, I believe it is the 10th most indebted council in the UK. Don't think spending millions to increase a small dividend would stack as a sensible investment.

Probably thus ensuring they'd try and do it, to be fair

 

[Graeme Duncan]

According to the Lothian Buses tracker buses 49 and 293 have been out of service for several weeks.

 

[overthewater]

Responsibility for public transport lay with Lothian Regional Council prior to the 1996 local government re-organisation and it became the responsibility of the new unitary councils thereafter. I don't know how the shares of what was LRT were allocated (and I'd be interested to find out), but the old City of Edinburgh district council didn't have any say in the matter.

Could you explain what you mean by "since tech there were all giving them for free"? It doesn't make any sense to me.

None of the four councils paid for the shares they were given them, since the original public body which did hold the share no longer exist, Its like a dad and he give his 4 sons the shares.

Back when the shares were divide up it made sense but now we have a point where the biggest share hold has control over the other 3 councils, and it does seem unfair. However since Edinburgh City council will never want to give up even 6% of the shares, so it's all a storm in a tea cup.