First Potteries Discussion

[TheGrandWazoo]

Some people might feel a professional operator should provide capacity for their existing and potential customers, rather than expecting a handout.



Source: Keele University Students Union press release

Another view might be an educational organisation with a budget of >£200m might have a responsibility to get the people who are paying thousands in tuition fees to/from said institution.

 

[sytransport]

And another view might be that said operator is a business and can’t be expected to run services at a loss. Use it or lose it is the generic term that springs to mind regarding route cutbacks and/or not increasing capacity/frequency

 

[capitalpotter]

Maybe D&G buses should run a competitive service from Hanley calling at stoke, the hospital and Newcastle only as an express route X25

 

[Baxenden Bank]

And another view might be that said operator is a business and can’t be expected to run services at a loss. Use it or lose it is the generic term that springs to mind regarding route cutbacks and/or not increasing capacity/frequency

Full and standing being the key phrase. Not one old woman and her wicker shopping basket.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2026 ==

Another view might be an educational organisation with a budget of >£200m might have a responsibility to get the people who are paying thousands in tuition fees to/from said institution.

Tesco don't pay for buses to serve their stores, the hospital budget is rather higher than the university one. Perhaps First could just sit there with their begging bowl and not be required to have any commercial nous. Which, if I recall correctly, was the view of one of the bosses reported ie all contracted / franchised operations.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Tesco don't pay for buses to serve their stores, the hospital budget is rather higher than the university one. Perhaps First could just sit there with their begging bowl and not be required to have any commercial nous. Which, if I recall correctly, was the view of one of the bosses reported ie all contracted / franchised operations.

They used to though, didn’t they, as did Asda IIRC.

Commercial nous extends to not running at a loss too

 

[Baxenden Bank]

They used to though, didn’t they, as did Asda IIRC.

Commercial nous extends to not running at a loss too

Indeed, supermarkets did fund buses. There was a thread discussing them recently, not sure how many still operate. The ones I used (before deregulation, Asda Rawtenstall) were what we would now call 'closed door' services rather than enhancing / supporting normal public services.

There is certainly an argument for universities, hospitals, employers subsidising buses outside of normal commercial times, for example late night for student social activities, evening / Sunday visiting times at hospitals, early / late shift changes 0600, 2200 and so on. The need for others to pay to enhance services during otherwise commercial times shows a certain attitude towards their customers. Short changing your customers by providing a service lower than that required is penny pinching. Running a business on a 'penny pinching' basis (other than for very short term reasons) never has a happy ending.

There is certainly capacity within the existing vehicle diagrams, running times and turnround times to offer a better service within the Potteries with no additional vehicle requirement.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Some people might feel a professional operator should provide capacity for their existing and potential customers, rather than expecting a handout.

Full and standing being the key phrase. Not one old woman and her wicker shopping basket.

The issue is that the extra income from providing the extra capacity may not get close to covering the cost of providing that capacity if it is requiring extra buses and drivers to be employed. For this type of problem, peak demand to a fixed destination like a University, the extra capacity may not even create any extra demand just spread out that demand more comfortably but that doesn't make it remotely a commercial proposition. A flow like this this is different to a normal service where extra trips, improving the frequency, have a chance of increasing demand & less full buses may also increase demand as there may well be some people not using the service simply because it is too busy at the times they want to travel - but even with normal services I have hit circumstances where the extra capacity required to deal with some overloading was never going to be a commercial proposition.

Tesco don't pay for buses to serve their stores, the hospital budget is rather higher than the university one. Perhaps First could just sit there with their begging bowl and not be required to have any commercial nous. Which, if I recall correctly, was the view of one of the bosses reported ie all contracted / franchised operations.

As others have said all the big supermarkets did, up until very recently (I think the last may have lasted until COVID though they had been in major decline over the previous decade), provide free or subsidised service to stores for flows that would clearly never be commercial. It appears that the supermarkets have decided they get enough business with car users and so are now taking even less interest in public transport than they did before. A lot of Hospital Trusts do fund bus links where their sites are badly placed for the core bus network as do a lot of Universities.

 

[markymark2000]

The issue is that the extra income from providing the extra capacity may not get close to covering the cost of providing that capacity if it is requiring extra buses and drivers to be employed. For this type of problem, peak demand to a fixed destination like a University, the extra capacity may not even create any extra demand just spread out that demand more comfortably but that doesn't make it remotely a commercial proposition. A flow like this this is different to a normal service where extra trips, improving the frequency, have a chance of increasing demand & less full buses may also increase demand as there may well be some people not using the service simply because it is too busy at the times they want to travel - but even with normal services I have hit circumstances where the extra capacity required to deal with some overloading was never going to be a commercial proposition.

While I can't speak on the other examples that you have experienced, in the case of the 25, it is also a core route for local travel linking up multiple key demand centres and so in cases like this, a frequency increase would probably help to increase patronage slightly.

Some people might feel a professional operator should provide capacity for their existing and potential customers, rather than expecting a handout.

Rather interestingly they are quoting £15k of funding. But from the announcement date until the advertised date for the trips ceasing, that would only give 44 days of these trips. £15k over 44 days is £340 per day, for a bus that is only in service for an hour and a half (It's 1 bus which does 07:36 to the uni, dead to Newcastle, then 08:24 to the Uni to arrive at 08:52). Even if you take into account dead running to/from the depot, the figures are certainly highly inflated and First are absolutely rinsing the uni for this. First Bus greed is off the scale.

 

[Contains Nuts]

£340 per day isn’t much though, considering First need to have this additional bus in the fleet, and that bus will have the same overheads as every other bus. It’s very expensive to have a bus sitting about with nothing else to do, especially as a short term arrangement as it’s harder to make additional changes to better utilise the vehicle.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

£340 per day isn’t much though, considering First need to have this additional bus in the fleet, and that bus will have the same overheads as every other bus. It’s very expensive to have a bus sitting about with nothing else to do, especially as a short term arrangement as it’s harder to make additional changes to better utilise the vehicle.

Indeed - an additional vehicle and an agency driver will soon add up!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Indeed - an additional vehicle and an agency driver will soon add up!

The problem is, when I raised this issue regarding the extra buses required by Burnley and Pendle for the Shudehill change, I was strongly castigated (by others) for suggesting that the extra bus required cost money. On the basis that the operator would already have it in their fleet, it was just filling up otherwise dead time, there is no additional cost etc. Similarly why assume an agency driver at their additional cost compared to directly employed staff?

Taking Bustimes data, First Potteries have 93 vehicles (or ticket machines!) for a PVR of 76, now 77. Five of those 93 haven't been used for a while, three are driver trainers therefore 85 buses for a PVR of 77, I'm not sure what ratio would apply to allow for normal maintenance requirements and whether this peak time bus can be sqeezed out by juggling maintenance schedules about a bit or whether they have 'spare' vehicles neither in service nor on maintenance on a normal day.

 

[Contains Nuts]

Taking Bustimes data, First Potteries have 93 vehicles (or ticket machines!) for a PVR of 76, now 77. Five of those 93 haven't been used for a while, three are driver trainers therefore 85 buses for a PVR of 77, I'm not sure what ratio would apply to allow for normal maintenance requirements and whether this peak time bus can be sqeezed out by juggling maintenance schedules about a bit or whether they have 'spare' vehicles neither in service nor on maintenance on a normal day.

I’d say that only 8 spare buses on a fleet that size is incredibly tight, especially given a significant number of them are between 10 and 13 years old.

Bus operators tend not to have buses sitting around ‘just in case’ as they are an expensive asset to both buy and maintain.

Even if it’s an older vehicle transferred from elsewhere within the business it still has the same requirements for maintenance which affects the bottom line in the accounts.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I’d say that only 8 spare buses on a fleet that size is incredibly tight, especially given a significant number of them are between 10 and 13 years old.

Bus operators tend not to have buses sitting around ‘just in case’ as they are an expensive asset to both buy and maintain.

Even if it’s an older vehicle transferred from elsewhere within the business it still has the same requirements for maintenance which affects the bottom line in the accounts.

Yeah, you're right, it's incredibly tight. Of those 8, 1 or 2 will be off for MOT/MOT prep, at least 2 will be for safety inspection (they'll do more inspections than that a day, but with such tight availability they'll rely on needing to swap vehicles out throughout the day). That only leaves 4 for all other maintenance and repair requirements including repaints, accident/bodywork repairs, servicing, engine/gearbox replacements, breakdown repairs etc etc.

Edit:
Just re-read the post before that, even if the 5 "long term" ones are engines/gearboxes etc, 4 for servicing, repairs, bodywork etc is still tight!

 

[Simon75]

The problem is, when I raised this issue regarding the extra buses required by Burnley and Pendle for the Shudehill change, I was strongly castigated (by others) for suggesting that the extra bus required cost money. On the basis that the operator would already have it in their fleet, it was just filling up otherwise dead time, there is no additional cost etc. Similarly why assume an agency driver at their additional cost compared to directly employed staff?

Taking Bustimes data, First Potteries have 93 vehicles (or ticket machines!) for a PVR of 76, now 77. Five of those 93 haven't been used for a while, three are driver trainers therefore 85 buses for a PVR of 77, I'm not sure what ratio would apply to allow for normal maintenance requirements and whether this peak time bus can be sqeezed out by juggling maintenance schedules about a bit or whether they have 'spare' vehicles neither in service nor on maintenance on a normal day.

Didn't realise the PVR and no of vehicles was that low. It was a lot higher years ago (Adderley Green garage i think has the capacity for about 120 buses)

 

[Dwarfer1979]

While I can't speak on the other examples that you have experienced, in the case of the 25, it is also a core route for local travel linking up multiple key demand centres and so in cases like this, a frequency increase would probably help to increase patronage slightly.

But the University in question, Keele, is out in the countryside so these are contra-peak flows out of town pretty reliant on that Uni driving demand so doesn't offer as much opportunity to create extra non-Uni income. The timings clash with the peaks so it doesn't facilitate doubling this resource up with that mainstream flow and if you did would require more than a 1 PVR increase.

Rather interestingly they are quoting £15k of funding. But from the announcement date until the advertised date for the trips ceasing, that would only give 44 days of these trips. £15k over 44 days is £340 per day, for a bus that is only in service for an hour and a half (It's 1 bus which does 07:36 to the uni, dead to Newcastle, then 08:24 to the Uni to arrive at 08:52). Even if you take into account dead running to/from the depot, the figures are certainly highly inflated and First are absolutely rinsing the uni for this. First Bus greed is off the scale.

Don't know Firsts pricing but £50 an hour is a low cost starting pricing (so the starting price for a cheap operator is £100 in direct costs), and First wouldn't be a low cost option, and as well as the direct operating time you need to factor in the inefficiencies caused by having an extra peak working and the extra paid time that will be incurred until you can start using that driver elsewhere (so £250 a day for something like this would be a cheap bid once you factor in that inefficiency). £340 a day for an extra PVR that is only working part of the day is about ball park on current cost bases, £500 per day is probably a base low cost daily rate with someone like First being somewhat more than this generally. Additionally if you are adding an extra PVR you need to have a base cost to cover the cost of an extra PVR (maintenance, insurance & other costs) then the hourly rate for the driver and operating costs of the bus. So the price for an extra PVR will be higher than the price for the same amount of work tacked onto an existing bus working where the base hourly rate may be all you look for and if you can find a way to not add resource you may go slightly below though the risk with that is that something may change that pushes this out (traffic causing a schedule to not work and it stops being as efficient to cover) so unless it is part of a bigger relationship you are unlikely to risk it.

Taking Bustimes data, First Potteries have 93 vehicles (or ticket machines!) for a PVR of 76, now 77. Five of those 93 haven't been used for a while, three are driver trainers therefore 85 buses for a PVR of 77, I'm not sure what ratio would apply to allow for normal maintenance requirements and whether this peak time bus can be sqeezed out by juggling maintenance schedules about a bit or whether they have 'spare' vehicles neither in service nor on maintenance on a normal day.

13 spare (assuming the 5 long-term are not withdrawn) for a PVR of 77 is pretty much ball park whilst 8 active spare is very tight. Assuming a fairly typical 4-weekly service cycle (some may go to a service every 5 weeks but 4 has been common with operators I have worked with) that means on an 80 vehicle fleet you will have 20 buses being serviced per week, generally servicing is done on weekdays so that is 4 buses a day off for routine servicing & MoTs so First Potteries appear to be running with about 4 buses available to cover breakdowns, accidents or other incidents requiring a bus swap on any day (& a breakdown yesterday may mean a bus isn't available today) which as you can see is starting to run tight.

A lot of operators talk about aiming for 10% spare but few achieve it, when they do it is the bigger depots with standard fleets - it depends on your fleet make up as multiple factors will create a higher spare requirement (if you have a number of different classes, size or mechanical spec for interurban work, age, fleet make up or many other factors) so most end up around 15% which is what First Potteries is at if you include long term off-road as well as those active recently.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Don't know Firsts pricing but £50 an hour is a low cost starting pricing (so the starting price for a cheap operator is £100 in direct costs), and First wouldn't be a low cost option, and as well as the direct operating time you need to factor in the inefficiencies caused by having an extra peak working and the extra paid time that will be incurred until you can start using that driver elsewhere (so £250 a day for something like this would be a cheap bid once you factor in that inefficiency). £340 a day for an extra PVR that is only working part of the day is about ball park on current cost bases, £500 per day is probably a base low cost daily rate with someone like First being somewhat more than this generally. Additionally if you are adding an extra PVR you need to have a base cost to cover the cost of an extra PVR (maintenance, insurance & other costs) then the hourly rate for the driver and operating costs of the bus. So the price for an extra PVR will be higher than the price for the same amount of work tacked onto an existing bus working where the base hourly rate may be all you look for and if you can find a way to not add resource you may go slightly below though the risk with that is that something may change that pushes this out (traffic causing a schedule to not work and it stops being as efficient to cover) so unless it is part of a bigger relationship you are unlikely to risk it.

Absolutely this!

People seem to have a view that a vehicle resource I.e. vehicle + driver can be distilled down into some hourly rate when essentially this is a dedicated daily resource albeit for a very limited requirement. Firms carry very little fat and certainly don't have a driver and a vehicle sat around during the morning peak on the off chance.

Nor is it the simple task of tacking on two hours onto the start of a shift (shifts don't tend to start at 0930) and getting an extra 5 shifts out of the existing drivers for a two to three month period... that's why you probably have to price in an agency driver.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Absolutely this!

People seem to have a view that a vehicle resource I.e. vehicle + driver can be distilled down into some hourly rate when essentially this is a dedicated daily resource albeit for a very limited requirement. Firms carry very little fat and certainly don't have a driver and a vehicle sat around during the morning peak on the off chance.

Nor is it the simple task of tacking on two hours onto the start of a shift (shifts don't tend to start at 0930) and getting an extra 5 shifts out of the existing drivers for a two to three month period... that's why you probably have to price in an agency driver.

First Potteries do!
They just hide it within running times and layover where buses step back one or two trips rather than forming the next journey.

Stoke-upon-Trent Church Street (stop C2)	07:15	07:29		07:39		07:53	08:10	08:29
Stoke-upon-Trent, opp Hancock Street	07:20	07:35		07:45		07:58	08:16	08:38
Hanley bus station (arrival stop)	07:36	07:52		08:02		08:16	08:34	08:55
Hanley bus station (stand V)	07:50	08:00	08:10	08:20	08:34	08:49	09:05	09:05
Stoke-upon-Trent, adj Seven Arches	08:09	08:19	08:30	08:40	08:54	09:08	09:23	09:23

Does it really take or need 67 minutes (0816 to 0923) to get from Hancock Street (immediately prior to Stoke Station) to Hanley, layover, then return to Seven Arches (opposite Hancock Street).

Then you have these first turns:

Board	Route	Start Point	Time
3812	39	Hanley	0852
10105	101	Stafford	0854

There are lost of reasons why this may be the case of course. Buses coming off maintenance / servicing, driver rota, staff or bus doing other non public things such as contracts.
Then there are the five Cheadle School buses, three of which do nothing between school trips.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Does it really take or need 67 minutes (0816 to 0923) to get from Hancock Street (immediately prior to Stoke Station) to Hanley, layover, then return to Seven Arches (opposite Hancock Street).

I'd venture that if I went to Hancock Street, I'd not see a vehicle parked up and a driver having a vape. It is just the sort of gap for an infill school run

Then you have these first turns:

Board	Route	Start Point	Time
3812	39	Hanley	0852
10105	101	Stafford	0854

Again, these are likely to be boards where the driver/vehicle is doing a non-tracking school run. Remember, not everything that is operated is tracked on bus times.

Then there are the five Cheadle School buses, three of which do nothing between school trips.

This is pretty standard but we're talking about PEAK vehicle requirements. Having a few boards that don't work between schools is handy so a vehicle can be used on with a non-safety critical defect and get repaired, or simply some low mileage boards where some older fleet can be hidden.

Otherwise, what you're suggesting is that First Potteries have 3 vehicles that aren't out during the peak, and three that only work in the peak. I doubt that is the case.

 

[markymark2000]

But the University in question, Keele, is out in the countryside so these are contra-peak flows out of town pretty reliant on that Uni driving demand so doesn't offer as much opportunity to create extra non-Uni income. The timings clash with the peaks so it doesn't facilitate doubling this resource up with that mainstream flow and if you did would require more than a 1 PVR increase.

It's not quite that out in the sticks. It's only a mile from the end of Orme Road (which is arguably where the build up area ends) to the start of the university. Yes it's not in the city/town centres but I wouldn't say it's as out in the sticks as you are suggesting.

Don't know Firsts pricing but £50 an hour is a low cost starting pricing (so the starting price for a cheap operator is £100 in direct costs), and First wouldn't be a low cost option, and as well as the direct operating time you need to factor in the inefficiencies caused by having an extra peak working and the extra paid time that will be incurred until you can start using that driver elsewhere (so £250 a day for something like this would be a cheap bid once you factor in that inefficiency). £340 a day for an extra PVR that is only working part of the day is about ball park on current cost bases, £500 per day is probably a base low cost daily rate with someone like First being somewhat more than this generally. Additionally if you are adding an extra PVR you need to have a base cost to cover the cost of an extra PVR (maintenance, insurance & other costs) then the hourly rate for the driver and operating costs of the bus. So the price for an extra PVR will be higher than the price for the same amount of work tacked onto an existing bus working where the base hourly rate may be all you look for and if you can find a way to not add resource you may go slightly below though the risk with that is that something may change that pushes this out (traffic causing a schedule to not work and it stops being as efficient to cover) so unless it is part of a bigger relationship you are unlikely to risk it.

This is all based on it being an additional bus to the overall depot requirement. I of course don't need to say it for your benefit given your role, but I'll say it for the benefit of others, most operators use these sorts of morning peak boards for buses which are having a 4 weekly checks and so rather than the bus being off all day, it can do this board and earn a few pound before going back to the depot for it's checks.

First Potteries do!
They just hide it within running times and layover where buses step back one or two trips rather than forming the next journey.

You know that, I know that.

It shouldn't take Einstein to realise that on a normally 15 minute service, right before the start of the uni day there is suddenly a 26 minute gap. And lo and behold, this it the trip that is getting overcrowded. Wow, who would have thought it. All these uni degrees that people get to work in the commercial teams and somehow lack the common sense that during a busy flow, having a 26 minute gap in a 15 minute frequency timetable, is going to lead to overcrowding.

Does it really take or need 67 minutes (0816 to 0923) to get from Hancock Street (immediately prior to Stoke Station) to Hanley, layover, then return to Seven Arches (opposite Hancock Street).

Journeys most mornings getting into Stoke Hanley 5 minutes early, and most buses having at least 5 minutes say off at Seven Arches as well. That's 10 minutes you can chop off a round trip and do that off each trip, as well as improving the efficiency with not having buses sat around so long, you'd save more than the 1 bus PVR needed to run these trips.
I and others have criticised D&Gs approach to slack timetables at times and so I think it says a lot that D&G on the 9 can get from Hanley to Stoke Church Street in 15 minutes, yet Firsts 25 gets 27 minutes to do the exact same section of route. If these highly skilled people in offices actually used the AVL that they have spent oh so much money on, they would clearly see that the bus is sitting around for somewhere around 10 minutes on this section 5 minutes at Seven Arches and 5 minutes on Church Street) and so clearly doesn't need all of the time that it's being given.

Yet again, organisations are having to stump up cash because Firsts commercial teams haven't a clue what they are doing, and just use whatever rubbish the AI spits out.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Journeys most mornings getting into Stoke Hanley 5 minutes early, and most buses having at least 5 minutes say off at Seven Arches as well. That's 10 minutes you can chop off a round trip and do that off each trip, as well as improving the efficiency with not having buses sat around so long, you'd save more than the 1 bus PVR needed to run these trips.
I and others have criticised D&Gs approach to slack timetables at times and so I think it says a lot that D&G on the 9 can get from Hanley to Stoke Church Street in 15 minutes, yet Firsts 25 gets 27 minutes to do the exact same section of route. If these highly skilled people in offices actually used the AVL that they have spent oh so much money on, they would clearly see that the bus is sitting around for somewhere around 10 minutes on this section 5 minutes at Seven Arches and 5 minutes on Church Street) and so clearly doesn't need all of the time that it's being given.

And you and I and @Baxenden Bank know that the reasons that this happens. First of all, they are scared of being in front of the TC for non-compliance with published registrations so they have built in excessive margin. Part of the problem is that they have blindly used AI slop scheduling that uses a mass of historic data to create a robust scheduling but, as we know, that is fundamentally flawed. It tries to turn something that can vary from day to day, hour to hour, into a scientific certainty and defaults to the "least worst" option that is sadly the worst option. So I'll cheerfully criticise First for that rubbish.

On the flip side, it might help if the local authority made any sort of moves on bus priority so there was more certainty for bus services. I don't know if you've ever driven there but peak hour traffic around the Potteries is terrible so not surprising that buses are stuck in it.

It's not quite that out in the sticks. It's only a mile from the end of Orme Road (which is arguably where the build up area ends) to the start of the university. Yes it's not in the city/town centres but I wouldn't say it's as out in the sticks as you are suggesting.

I don't think @Dwarfer1979 was suggesting that it's totally isolated but it is out of the main conurbation and is a dead end destination.

This is all based on it being an additional bus to the overall depot requirement. I of course don't need to say it for your benefit given your role, but I'll say it for the benefit of others, most operators use these sorts of morning peak boards for buses which are having a 4 weekly checks and so rather than the bus being off all day, it can do this board and earn a few pound before going back to the depot for it's checks.

It is based on it being an additional bus though. Some of the Cheadle schools are done on that basis - doing a light run and then back into the depot, but it still adds to the PVR.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

It's not quite that out in the sticks. It's only a mile from the end of Orme Road (which is arguably where the build up area ends) to the start of the university. Yes it's not in the city/town centres but I wouldn't say it's as out in the sticks as you are suggesting.

It is surrounded by fields and a mile beyond the houses plus, most importantly, there is no other traffic destination (houses are sources, workplaces & shops are examples of destinations as the Uni is) anywhere near so the only demand for these journeys at these times is for the Uni and that is likely to be fairly complete on demand already so adding extra buses brings extra cost but minimal extra revenue as it is quite likely you won't attract many extra students by providing more seats.

This is all based on it being an additional bus to the overall depot requirement. I of course don't need to say it for your benefit given your role, but I'll say it for the benefit of others, most operators use these sorts of morning peak boards for buses which are having a 4 weekly checks and so rather than the bus being off all day, it can do this board and earn a few pound before going back to the depot for it's checks.

Actually lots don't, the big depots (much bigger than First Potteries now) may be happy to do it but our engineers (with depots only slightly smaller than Potteries) generally don't like it as it means there is an engineer with possibly nothing to do first thing in the morning. The only depot I have worked at that did this routinely (as opposed to when they had to to ensure they could cover school runs by nicking a service bus) was well over twice the size of First Potteries so they had plenty of buses to service. If you only have 3 or 4 you want them all available as soon as the engineers start so they can be cleared faster to allow you to deal with what comes up during the day afterwards & to have the service buses available to cover breakdowns in time for the afternoon peak.

You also have that issue that if you price marginally because you can fit it in easily today it can cause you issues next month when things change and you have something that doesn't pay for itself alone and you now can't fit it in efficiently so you are now losing money on it.

Journeys most mornings getting into Stoke Hanley 5 minutes early, and most buses having at least 5 minutes say off at Seven Arches as well. That's 10 minutes you can chop off a round trip and do that off each trip, as well as improving the efficiency with not having buses sat around so long, you'd save more than the 1 bus PVR needed to run these trips.
I and others have criticised D&Gs approach to slack timetables at times and so I think it says a lot that D&G on the 9 can get from Hanley to Stoke Church Street in 15 minutes, yet Firsts 25 gets 27 minutes to do the exact same section of route. If these highly skilled people in offices actually used the AVL that they have spent oh so much money on, they would clearly see that the bus is sitting around for somewhere around 10 minutes on this section 5 minutes at Seven Arches and 5 minutes on Church Street) and so clearly doesn't need all of the time that it's being given.

Yet again, organisations are having to stump up cash because Firsts commercial teams haven't a clue what they are doing, and just use whatever rubbish the AI spits out.

Actually the hardest thing to spot with AVL is slack timetables if your drivers are actually doing your job and waiting time to avoid early running. All the reporting mechanisms just show a bus running to time with no indication it has sat around anywhere. The only way to find it using the computer systems, at least what we use (we are on Ticketer but someone may be able to come up with a very clever program to get arrival times out of mid-points but even the standard reports from the system don't show it), is to manually look at individual trips and look for where buses are sat for some time (& if drivers do the alternative of just driving slowly it masks that slack as you can't tell from the screen if it is traffic or slow driving causing the slower than average speed). It is time consuming, difficult to spot patterns, entirely unscientific and mostly relies on someone raising it as an issue. I actually have a route where informal feedback has come back from the drivers that the running time is too slack but I can't find it in the data & I can't get anyone at the depot to provide any actual corroboration of when/where it is happening. What you are describing is probably spotable due to the lengths of time but it is still likely a lengthy and timeconsuming manual investigation to find it.

 

[markymark2000]

quite likely you won't attract many extra students by providing more seats.

Agreed. If First planned ahead though and timetabled well enough to start with, then they may well have found that the dupe bus wasn't needed because they could have increased the frequency slightly by cutting out all of the sitting around mid trip, and cutting back the extensive layovers (Whoever knew that it was so profitable to keep layover bays warm)

Actually lots don't, the big depots (much bigger than First Potteries now) may be happy to do it but our engineers (with depots only slightly smaller than Potteries) generally don't like it as it means there is an engineer with possibly nothing to do first thing in the morning.

From my observations, your operations tend to have more all day boards though rather than First Potteries where a good number of buses only work in the peaks. I suppose it's down to how each depot works, but it does open up these kinds of opportunities.

You also have that issue that if you price marginally because you can fit it in easily today it can cause you issues next month when things change and you have something that doesn't pay for itself alone and you now can't fit it in efficiently so you are now losing money on it.

It's only until the end of March (according to the news article) so longer term effects like you are highlighting here shouldn't be being considered.

Actually the hardest thing to spot with AVL is slack timetables if your drivers are actually doing your job and waiting time to avoid early running. All the reporting mechanisms just show a bus running to time with no indication it has sat around anywhere.
...
What you are describing is probably spotable due to the lengths of time but it is still likely a lengthy and timeconsuming manual investigation to find it.

(Cutting back the quote just to save the post being too long)
It perhaps depends on what systems first use then but I know that other large operators have systems that can see arrival times. I agree it can be hard to see where there are cases of the drivers going slow (because as you rightly say it may be deliberate, it may be traffic or external factors), but in the cases of the 25, it's pretty reliable that buses are sitting around at the Seven Arches and Stoke Town Centre timing points for a considerable amount of time.
And surely as any scheduler that is worth their pay packet, you would common sense check the times. Such as why it's taking your bus 25 minutes to do such a short journey and when you compare that to your other routes, they get a lot less time to do extremely similar routes (Ie the 23 gets 10 minutes Hanley to Stoke Town Centre. Why then does it take the 25, 20 minutes to get from Hanley to Seven Arches, when it uses 95% the same route). For the 25s to end up in the state they are, that is a lot of red flags that have been missed.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

On the flip side, it might help if the local authority made any sort of moves on bus priority so there was more certainty for bus services. I don't know if you've ever driven there but peak hour traffic around the Potteries is terrible so not surprising that buses are stuck in it.

No point investing in bus priority if the 'AI slop' is then incapable of shortening journey times as a result. Investment requires outputs. Investors (ie DfT) require bang for their buck. Getting buses from Hanley to Stoke 1 minute quicker, for the bus to then just sit there for 6 minutes instead of five doesn't look good.

I understand that no-one is allowed to interfere with the AI output. Computer knows best. Open the bus bay doors Hal.

 

[sytransport]

No point investing in bus priority if the 'AI slop' is then incapable of shortening journey times as a result. Investment requires outputs. Investors (ie DfT) require bang for their buck. Getting buses from Hanley to Stoke 1 minute quicker, for the bus to then just sit there for 6 minutes instead of five doesn't look good.

I understand that no-one is allowed to interfere with the AI output. Computer knows best. Open the bus bay doors Hal.

You seem to be quite misinformed about the ‘AI slop’ that is used by First. While I agree it’s not always perfect, it analyses historic running time data and produces a timetable that meets a set percentile (usually between the 90-95% margin). It can be adjusted accordingly.

You raise a valid point regarding bus priority in an immediate instance, however it only requires a few months data and it analyses arrival times, so if a bus is waiting for 5-6 minutes it will cut the running time where needed.

Unfortunately you’re damed if you do damned if you don’t. Would you rather missing trips from regulation, or a slightly longer journey? I know which one I’d prefer.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

You seem to be quite misinformed about the ‘AI slop’ that is used by First. While I agree it’s not always perfect, it analyses historic running time data and produces a timetable that meets a set percentile (usually between the 90-95% margin). It can be adjusted accordingly.

You raise a valid point regarding bus priority in an immediate instance, however it only requires a few months data and it analyses arrival times, so if a bus is waiting for 5-6 minutes it will cut the running time where needed.

Unfortunately you’re damed if you do damned if you don’t. Would you rather missing trips from regulation, or a slightly longer journey? I know which one I’d prefer.

Well someone needs to do that analysis with the First Potteries schedules because I am fed up with counting rust spots on lamposts whilst waiting time. A couple of minutes at Tesco, a few more at Meir, a few more at Longton, then several more at Warrington Road and still arriving into Hanley early. Then there is the regular ten minute wait on specific journeys at Longton in the return direction. All the passengers looking round what is (not) happening, has the bus broken down?

When you say arrival times, does that include arrival times at intermediate timing points or just the terminus? A timetable change since the AI timetables were introduced did reduce the excessive running time between Tesco and Blythe Bridge terminus but they were clearly excessive to anyone with any local knowledge. How would it handle the situation where buses arrive at the stop immediately outside Hanley Bus Station then, at least according to bus times records, show it taking several minutes to make it to the stop on the bus station itself. Does the future average calculated by the software include this false journey time?

I would rather times were realistic. Neither driving like a maniac to keep to time nor dawdling along with my life ebbing away, deliberately stoppping at stops, opening the door, closing the doors then waiting a short while even though no-one (unless the invisible man) gets on or off.

How does the software deal with late departures from the start? Does it measure the time from the scheduled departure time or the actual departure time?

 

[sytransport]

Well someone needs to do that analysis with the First Potteries schedules because I am fed up with counting rust spots on lamposts whilst waiting time. A couple of minutes at Tesco, a few more at Meir, a few more at Longton, then several more at Warrington Road and still arriving into Hanley early. Then there is the regular ten minute wait on specific journeys at Longton in the return direction. All the passengers looking round what is (not) happening, has the bus broken down?

When you say arrival times, does that include arrival times at intermediate timing points or just the terminus? A timetable change since the AI timetables were introduced did reduce the excessive running time between Tesco and Blythe Bridge terminus but they were clearly excessive to anyone with any local knowledge. How would it handle the situation where buses arrive at the stop immediately outside Hanley Bus Station then, at least according to bus times records, show it taking several minutes to make it to the stop on the bus station itself. Does the future average calculated by the software include this false journey time?

I would rather times were realistic. Neither driving like a maniac to keep to time nor dawdling along with my life ebbing away, deliberately stoppping at stops, opening the door, closing the doors then waiting a short while even though no-one (unless the invisible man) gets on or off.

How does the software deal with late departures from the start? Does it measure the time from the scheduled departure time or the actual departure time?

It’s because it takes into account the percentile rather than the average. Let’s say it uses the 95th percentile, aiming for 95% of buses being on time, it will take all the existing running times and create a schedule that will assure 95% of buses are on time.

It takes into account all arrival times - bustimes.org purely shows departure times which is available to the public - it doesn’t mean the data isn’t there nor does it show the specific data that AI collates from several sources.

In terms of buses departing late, it calculates the running time and how long it actually takes the bus to run the route, late start time is irrelevant as the software will generate running times for recovery too if certain times of day are constantly running late leading to the next trip starting late.

 

[SSmith2009]

Well someone needs to do that analysis with the First Potteries schedules because I am fed up with counting rust spots on lamposts whilst waiting time. A couple of minutes at Tesco, a few more at Meir, a few more at Longton, then several more at Warrington Road and still arriving into Hanley early. Then there is the regular ten minute wait on specific journeys at Longton in the return direction. All the passengers looking round what is (not) happening, has the bus broken down?

Exactly the same in Leicester.

Ever since the introduction of AI derived timetables they have too much time padded into them meaning a 55 min round trip is now well over 80 mins and runs at an uneven headway of between every 8 to 19 mins between buses.

 

[RELL6L]

I’m pleased to see someone on this forum defending the AI scheduling because it is always best to hear both sides of a story. But I think it is dreadful and has been applied without anyone stepping in and employing common sense.

I will just give two examples.

First Potteries 38 and 38A from Butt Lane to Hanley. There’s a 38 at 10.33 and a 38A at 10.37. Bad enough that they are 4 minutes apart, but the first takes 46 minutes to Hanley, the second takes 40 and therefore overtakes the first one and arrives 2 minutes earlier. Mad. Inconsistent and non-memorable frequencies, fewer journeys overall, short and long gaps and long pauses.

First Berkshire X74 and the new M40 coming in March. From Loudwater into High Wycombe the X74 is timed to take between 15 and 21 minutes,, depending on the time of day, which is sensible. But for the M40 starting in March, it is a flat 16 throughout the day. I know there is no data for the new route but why not use data from a parallel route?

Loads more examples but I would love to hear justification.

On the 95% argument, I would rather have a bus journey that was sometimes 5 minutes late than one which always takes 5 minutes longer than it needs to, even though it is on time!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I’m pleased to see someone on this forum defending the AI scheduling because it is always best to hear both sides of a story. But I think it is dreadful and has been applied without anyone stepping in and employing common sense.

Loads more examples but I would love to hear justification.

On the 95% argument, I would rather have a bus journey that was sometimes 5 minutes late than one which always takes 5 minutes longer than it needs to, even though it is on time!

I understand the argument but it seems to be fundamentally flawed and there are some real oddities that seem to defy logic. One example that I spotted on Saturday at Ashton Gate in Bristol.

The U2 runs from Bristol to Weston runs every hour from 0800 (Mon to Fri). We can all appreciate that rush hour ones (albeit running counter to the main flow) need a bit more time and they hit Ashton Gate at 0813 and 0914, whilst all the off peak ones take 12 minutes... except the 1300 which takes 10 minutes and so runs two mins earlier throughout. I cannot fathom what in the data provided that one - it's faster than the 2300 journey!!

 

[sytransport]

It’s all to do with the granularity selected and user prompts as to why times on one service vary from another and why a service 2 minutes earlier may take 5 minutes longer for example. Unfortunately the corridors must not to be set up correctly for Potteries and that’s why there are journeys so close together that vary in running time causing an overlap.

It is very flawed and I personally think they should use an average runtime rather than one based off a percentile, but the powers that be want it that way. The best thing to do from a passenger perspective is to record common occurrences of excess waiting time and inconsistencies and lodge them as formal complaints. I’m in no way disagreeing with the views but I do think it’s important to give correct information on how the AI system works.