East Anglia Bus Scene

[F Great Eastern]

Konnectbuses have been awarded another round of funding for the following routes, among others that have not publicly been released:
51: Hadleigh - Bildeston - Stowmarket
52: Hadleigh - Aldham

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25924430.daily-bus-route-open-hadleigh-stowmarket/

The irony is that the article turns about passengers now having a reliable bus service funded by government grants The same operator still has problems with running their existing network, with further services cancelled today, which is still far from a rare issue.

Rather than take on more work, which will stretch the fleet and staffing further still, how about they provide a more reliable service that patrons on their existing routes can rely on first?

 

[buslad1988]

Konnectbuses have been awarded another round of funding for the following routes, among others that have not publicly been released:
51: Hadleigh - Bildeston - Stowmarket
52: Hadleigh - Aldham

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25924430.daily-bus-route-open-hadleigh-stowmarket/

Interesting, thanks for that.

Are we aware of when the rest of the funding projects will be announced?

It must also be time to start reviewing some of the original BSIP funded routes… Ipswich Buses 8B for example has been going for 2 years now - at what point does it go commercial?

Having BSIP funding is great, but they can’t just keep throwing it at particular routes indefinitely. If they continue to be loss making after a set time then surely it should be cut back/withdrawn and spent on a different project which might actually be more useful?

 

[Wawanesa]

Konnectbuses have been awarded another round of funding for the following routes, among others that have not publicly been released:
51: Hadleigh - Bildeston - Stowmarket
52: Hadleigh - Aldham

This is an area that I know well. Presumably the new routes will replace bits of existing routes but it is hard to see where the demand is going to come from. Unfortunately the Hedingham/ Chambers garage at Sudbury is still very short of staff so they will indeed struggle to operate any new work.

Also just announced under BSIP is that Stephenson's 38/A route (Halstead - Braintree - Witham) is to be increased from a 30 minute frequency to every 20 minutes with additional early evening journeys. Although welcome, it is irritating because Essex County Council withdrew the quite well patronised Sunday service 21 in 2024. This covered part of the weekday Service 38 route. The best and cheapest way to improve the 38 would be to buy several large cans of paint and put down double yellow lines in certain key places which would greatly improve the speed of the service and reduce driver stress.

 

[F Great Eastern]

This is an area that I know well. Presumably the new routes will replace bits of existing routes but it is hard to see where the demand is going to come from. Unfortunately the Hedingham/ Chambers garage at Sudbury is still very short of staff so they will indeed struggle to operate any new work.

Yet they keep winning tenders SCC tenders (I'm not talking about BSIP money here) by beating other people on cost.

However the wages at their operation are not exactly great, so isn't there an argument that they are tendering too low which means they can't offer high enough pay to get enough staff? This does no favours to the industry as a whole or customers when an operator is winning tenders at rates where it can't afford to offer high enough wages to have enough staff to operate said services.

There ought to be a minimum performance level that is required for anyone who is tendering for public services. If a company cannot offer a reliable service on it's existing network, it should seriously harm their chances if not totally exclude them from bidding for more work until the get their existing ship in order.

I had hoped that TMS taking over the operation would help, but we're not seeing much different in terms of tactics so far in the endless chase of new work whilst the current network is in desperate need of investment and reliability improvements.

 

[Wawanesa]

A sign of forthcoming investment is that planning permission has been granted for a massive upgrade of the facilities at the Flagfinders depot/ outstation (originally the Florida depot) at Halstead. It is rumoured that the Hedingham depot at Sible Hedingham may be closing, presumably as a consequence of this.

 

[MotCO]

However the wages at their operation are not exactly great, so isn't there an argument that they are tendering too low which means they can't offer high enough pay to get enough staff? This does no favours to the industry as a whole or customers when an operator is winning tenders at rates where it can't afford to offer high enough wages to have enough staff to operate said services.

I would have expected that at the tender's presentation, if the tender prices included wage levels lower than the other tenders, then they would have been asked about their staff recruitment and retention policies, especially given their current difficulties in recruiting staff. If SCC did not ask these questions, or accepted the answers at face value, then SCC must shoulder some of the blame if the service is not delivered per the tender specification.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

I would have expected that at the tender's presentation, if the tender prices included wage levels lower than the other tenders, then they would have been asked about their staff recruitment and retention policies, especially given their current difficulties in recruiting staff. If SCC did not ask these questions, or accepted the answers at face value, then SCC must shoulder some of the blame if the service is not delivered per the tender specification.

As a general rule such things are not considered. Authorities ask for a daily price and thats it.

The 51/52 aren't tendered. They look like direct award as many BSIP developments are.

 

[MotCO]

As a general rule such things are not considered. Authorities ask for a daily price and thats it.

I must admit to being a bit surprised. When I was evaluating tenders, being able to perform the contract, including the ability to recruit and retain staff, was a prime consideration.

 

[buslad1988]

BSIP money isn’t spent on a tender process… you simply put in a bid/scheme with a price required. So you’re not being awarded a contract as such - it’s the operators (working with parish/town councils) coming up with these “ideas” and putting them forward. Suffolk already have (an albeit old) list of schemes/ideas put forward with how they were graded from previous years.

But again, if operators don’t think outside the box or put forward anything radical, things just continue much the same.

Last time round, there’s large parts of East lpswich unserved and unconnected (and still are) - but rather than coming up with a new route to fill the gaps and test the water (which is the purpose of BSIP) they simply used some funds to bolster a few existing frequencies on routes that have ran for decades.

SCC even seem to celebrate putting in new bus shelters with press articles now. I mean, years ago it was just a normal thing which would go relatively un-noticed; you didn’t see them putting a piece in the local paper stating they’d spent X amount on a new shelter!

There also seems to be a lot of chat in press releases about SCC wanting to spending BSIP towards electric vehicles… it makes no sense when ZEBRA exists, why not just use the appropriate funding pot for the relative schemes?

 

[F Great Eastern]

As a general rule such things are not considered. Authorities ask for a daily price and thats it.

The 51/52 aren't tendered. They look like direct award as many BSIP developments are.

The 51 and 52 are indeed not tendered, but the point still stands about a company that is looking to expand and SCC are only willing to fund that via BSIP, despite the fact said company has serious issues with other routes which are already being subsidised by SCC.

There needs to be criteria that if a tendered service does not achieve adequate performance then it is retendered and the existing operator disqualified and this is taken into consideration for tenders of other routes. The current system makes a mockery of passengers who can be left high and dry and the authority seems to do very little about it. If they had more teeth and started making proper penalties for non operation that were big enough, said operators would either need to buck their ideas up or tender a higher price that would allow them to offer higher wages and thus attract and retain more staff.

Last time round, there’s large parts of East lpswich unserved and unconnected (and still are) - but rather than coming up with a new route to fill the gaps and test the water (which is the purpose of BSIP) they simply used some funds to bolster a few existing frequencies on routes that have ran for decades.

The one example that comes to mind is that Ipswich Buses said that a number of their routes needed additional funding to keep going at existing frequencies, as they were going to potentially cut the services back, and then a while after they got the funding, they announced five brand new double decker vehicles, the first brand new ones for a long time.

 

[buslad1988]

The one example that comes to mind is that Ipswich Buses said that a number of their routes needed additional funding to keep going at existing frequencies, as they were going to potentially cut the services back, and then a while after they got the funding, they announced five brand new double decker vehicles, the first brand new ones for a long time.

There in lies the issue, rather than ask for hand outs to keep existing services with minimal variation for the past 30/40 years… why not actually sit down, evaluate and re-draw the network?

What might have worked 30 years ago when shopping habits were very town centre focused doesn’t apply now. It’s like they have no appetite to try something different, which is what BSIP is for.

 

[markymark2000]

BSIP money isn’t spent on a tender process… you simply put in a bid/scheme with a price required. So you’re not being awarded a contract as such - it’s the operators (working with parish/town councils) coming up with these “ideas” and putting them forward. Suffolk already have (an albeit old) list of schemes/ideas put forward with how they were graded from previous years.

Suffolk just seems to want to throw money at everyone and let them do what they want. No clear plan in the first place on what results they want, no ongoing plan to advertise the route, no clear plan for what happens when the money runs out, no common sense to ensure the funds are spent in the right places. Very chalk and cheese compared to their neighbours in Norfolk who seem much more calculated about where their money is going.

Last time round, there’s large parts of East lpswich unserved and unconnected (and still are) - but rather than coming up with a new route to fill the gaps and test the water (which is the purpose of BSIP) they simply used some funds to bolster a few existing frequencies on routes that have ran for decades.

Boosting some existing frequencies can be a good thing though and can stimulate growth. Of course it depends on the specific routes and potential for growth. But as a basic generalisation, boosting frequencies can have a better impact.

If they had more teeth and started making proper penalties for non operation that were big enough, said operators would either need to buck their ideas up or tender a higher price that would allow them to offer higher wages and thus attract and retain more staff.

The same can be said for literally almost everything in the bus industry. Operators do what they want due to the Traffic Commissioners being largely a waste of fresh air, and councils continually passing the buck because they they care for nothing other than having the lowest price. Stagecoach South Wales a few years back cancelled 700 trips per week due to staff shortages, no one batted an eyelid and no public inquiry. I know of a council who happily backed up an small operator where more than 50% of the trips on a route were failing to operate and they refuse to cut the pay or fine them for it (so they got full pay for months on end while operating 50% of the trips). If people knew the half of what actually goes on with taxpayers money to operators who fail to comply with laws or provide the service in line with the contracts, there would be uproar.

 

[robert west]

This is an area that I know well. Presumably the new routes will replace bits of existing routes but it is hard to see where the demand is going to come from. Unfortunately the Hedingham/ Chambers garage at Sudbury is still very short of staff so they will indeed struggle to operate any new work.

Also just announced under BSIP is that Stephenson's 38/A route (Halstead - Braintree - Witham) is to be increased from a 30 minute frequency to every 20 minutes with additional early evening journeys. Although welcome, it is irritating because Essex County Council withdrew the quite well patronised Sunday service 21 in 2024. This covered part of the weekday Service 38 route. The best and cheapest way to improve the 38 would be to buy several large cans of paint and put down double yellow lines in certain key places which would greatly improve the speed of the service and reduce driver stress.

when do the 38 changes take place and is there a timetable somewhere please

 

[_sSamuel]

Some upcoming changes and 'improvements' to the Ipswich Buses network...

Service 1 - Route Adjusted: No longer serving the loop it did in Greenwich, mainly due to 'congestion' in the area (presuming that's a polite way of saying poorly parked cars!).
Service 2 - Running Time Changes, still every 30 minutes as current.
Service 7 - Minor Timetable Adjustments, still every 30 minutes.
Service 16 - Minor Timetable Adjustments, still every 30 mins.
Service 92 - Afternoon Departures pushed back slightly.
Service 93(A) - Route Adjusted: buses now use the bus lane on Northern Approach Road, serving Colchester General Hospital, to avoid congestion. Additionally, some afternoon/evening journeys are pushed back slightly.
Services 118 & 119 - Route and Timetable Changes: Framlingham to Stradbroke is no longer served by these routes, instead being provided by TMS' new service '482' (funded by BSIP supposedly). Additionally, a new 07:00 departure from Ipswich, a consistent 17:20 return journey, all journeys serving Swiland Church Lane and early morning, evening and Saturday journeys will no longer serve Otley College.

School Services...
Service 616 - Minor Timetable Adjustments: AM departurer departs 10 minutes earlier, and adjustments to the timetable to improve reliability.
Service 997 - One AM Journey Removed: 08:35 from OCM will no longer operate.

 

[Wawanesa]

when do the 38 changes take place and is there a timetable somewhere please

The Service 38 changes come from a report in the Braintree & Witham Times which is clearly based on a press release. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to track down any details.

 

[robert west]

The Service 38 changes come from a report in the Braintree & Witham Times which is clearly based on a press release. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to track down any details.

thanks for the reply i will try and find something

 

[buslad1988]

Latest underwhelming service changes from Ipswich Buses as mentioned up thread by _sSamuel:

Service Improvements & Updates from 12th April 2026 – Ipswich Buses

ipswichbuses.co.uk

They’ve failed to mention the removal of service 1 from Sainsbury’s Warren Heath on Sundays in that release - guessing they’d hope nobody would notice! With the Greenwich loop removed that’s the end of services around there after 30+ years. They also don’t seem to be able to spell ‘Robeck Road’ either.

Why they’ve gone to the effort of changing the 7 and 16 for a couple of tiny timing changes mid route is anyone’s guess - waste of resource having to alter roadside and print new timetables etc for that.

The 93 is a bit of a basket case and maybe it’s time they stepped away from the rural type work and concentrated on home turf. I’m sure TMS would snap up the 93 atleast - would also finally allow the withdrawal of the oldest omnidekkas.

Guessing they’ve received no further BSIP money then expect to continue ‘as is’ and the 8B appears to have no changes either.

In other news… yet more bus sales from the ever merry go round fleet that is Beestons.

Chartwell Bus Sales Ltd

Chartwell Bus Sales Ltd 01403 756 804 / 07950 616 106, Founded in 2016 by Director Steve Swain who has over 30 years’ experience in the UK Bus and Coach industry. Chartwell offers a wide range of new and used buses and coaches, from 22 seats through to 80 + to suit all specifications and budgets.

www.chartwellbussales.co.uk

Chartwell Bus Sales Ltd

Chartwell Bus Sales Ltd 01403 756 804 / 07950 616 106, Founded in 2016 by Director Steve Swain who has over 30 years’ experience in the UK Bus and Coach industry. Chartwell offers a wide range of new and used buses and coaches, from 22 seats through to 80 + to suit all specifications and budgets.

www.chartwellbussales.co.uk

 

[Simon75]

Latest underwhelming service changes from Ipswich Buses as mentioned up thread by _sSamuel:

Service Improvements & Updates from 12th April 2026 – Ipswich Buses

ipswichbuses.co.uk

They’ve failed to mention the removal of service 1 from Sainsbury’s Warren Heath on Sundays in that release - guessing they’d hope nobody would notice! With the Greenwich loop removed that’s the end of services around there after 30+ years. They also don’t seem to be able to spell ‘Robeck Road’ either.

Why they’ve gone to the effort of changing the 7 and 16 for a couple of tiny timing changes mid route is anyone’s guess - waste of resource having to alter roadside and print new timetables etc for that.

The 93 is a bit of a basket case and maybe it’s time they stepped away from the rural type work and concentrated on home turf. I’m sure TMS would snap up the 93 atleast - would also finally allow the withdrawal of the oldest omnidekkas.

Guessing they’ve received no further BSIP money then expect to continue ‘as is’ and the 8B appears to have no changes either.

In other news… yet another sale from Beestons.

Chartwell Bus Sales Ltd

Chartwell Bus Sales Ltd 01403 756 804 / 07950 616 106, Founded in 2016 by Director Steve Swain who has over 30 years’ experience in the UK Bus and Coach industry. Chartwell offers a wide range of new and used buses and coaches, from 22 seats through to 80 + to suit all specifications and budgets.

www.chartwellbussales.co.uk

There is also the now closed thread on Ipswich Buses

Ipswich Buses

I did a serarch on here but other Ipswich Buses threads look closed so please forgive me if this is a pointless thread! Ipswich Buses are taking over routes 2/2A Manningtree to Clacton from Panther Travel and routes 4 and 11 in Colchester currently operated by Arriva Colchester from 27th July...

www.railforums.co.uk

Also looking at the timetables, hopw come a few journeys say operated on behalf of Ipswich Council when they own it ?

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Also looking at the timetables, hopw come a few journeys say operated on behalf of Ipswich Council when they own it ?

Because in terms of tendering, or other service based funding, the council have to treat the bus company they own the same as all other operators for legal reasons (they can still invest/loan money as any other shareholder would seperately) as the municipals are arms-length companies - direct transport departments like some of the shire councils have built up recently work differently but all the legacy municipals are arms-length so have to be treated like any other operator (and having worked for a short while for a council that owned a legacy municipal the relationship between council officers & bus company management is not always as cordial or close as you may expect from the fact that one owns the other).

 

[buslad1988]

all the legacy municipals are arms-length so have to be treated like any other operator (and having worked for a short while for a council that owned a legacy municipal the relationship between council officers & bus company management is not always as cordial or close as you may expect from the fact that one owns the other).

Indeed this, bosses running municipal operations can feel strangulated by the hold councillors and non-bus people have over them. The ability to make decisions for the good of company often thwarted due to short sightedness and those on the board being purely motivated by political reasons and votes.

 

[Sleepy]

Big concerns about contracted bus services now Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk County Councils are all being abolished - how many councils will want to fund services to outside their boundaries ?

 

[markymark2000]

Big concerns about contracted bus services now Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk County Councils are all being abolished - how many councils will want to fund services to outside their boundaries ?

Transport powers will either go temporarily to the new unitary authorities and then move to the combined authorities when they get set up, or powers will go straight to the larger combined authorities.
In some ways this will help cross border routes between Suffolk and Norfolk and between Essex, Thurrock and Southend as transport would be viewed as a bigger network than current. That said, how it affects journeys which cross over the combined authorities boundaries will very much depend on the policies that get created when the combined authorities are set up. They may take a harder line on 'peoples lives stop at the authority boundary' or they may look at things a lot more logically and embrace partnership working to deliver the best results for passengers. That very much depends on the staff that they employ though and the policies made at the time. You'd hope for the latter, but also don't be too surprised if it's the former.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Big concerns about contracted bus services now Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk County Councils are all being abolished - how many councils will want to fund services to outside their boundaries ?

Aren't Norfolk and Suffolk going to be a combined authority?

 

[Sleepy]

Aren't Norfolk and Suffolk going to be a combined authority?

It's going to be 3 unitary councils in each so 6 district running transport instead of current 2.

 

[Cesarcollie]

It's going to be 3 unitary councils in each so 6 district running transport instead of current 2.

No, as there will be a Norfolk & Suffolk Mayoral Combined Authority with a Mayor which will take over (most) transport powers, sitting above the unitaries.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

No, as there will be a Norfolk & Suffolk Mayoral Combined Authority with a Mayor which will take over (most) transport powers, sitting above the unitaries.

That’s what I thought.

 

[Simon75]

Is there an an update on the saga with the Sandon P&R in Chelmsford ?
Has Central Connect pulled out yet ?

 

[buslad1988]

Latest round of Arriva changes in Colchester sees the 3 withdrawn from Stanway and cut back to run City Centre - Greenstead only.

Shame the Stanway section never took off, it provided an alternative to First and saw Arriva return to the area for the first time in about 20 years.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

[F Great Eastern]

The 51 and 52 are indeed not tendered, but the point still stands about a company that is looking to expand and SCC are only willing to fund that via BSIP, despite the fact said company has serious issues with other routes which are already being subsidised by SCC.

Does anyone know if these properly launched today?

The 51 only has two trips out of 12 that tracked on bustimes.org, the 52 didn't have any that track and the 50 seemed to have quite a few missing trips as well.

I'm hoping they simply didn't track rather than them not running the service, because if they didn't operate then it needs to be examined why SCC keep filtering taxpayers money to this operator whilst turning down funding for other operators who do have a better track record.

 

[GenericTS]

Does anyone know if these properly launched today?

The 51 only has two trips out of 12 that tracked on bustimes.org, the 52 didn't have any that track and the 50 seemed to have quite a few missing trips as well.

I'm hoping they simply didn't track rather than them not running the service, because if they didn't operate then it needs to be examined why SCC keep filtering taxpayers money to this operator whilst turning down funding for other operators who do have a better track record.

The 51/52 did indeed operate - the ticket machine had some wiring issues that cropped up which needed a bit of work to solve, which has now been done and the minibus has been put back into service.