Brighton & Hove / Metrobus Discussion

[stadler]

Brighton & Hove have confirmed the other upcoming service changes this morning:

April Service Updates

Service updates will take place from 13th April to routes 1, N1, 7, N7, 13X, N29, N48, 77, 78 & 79.

www.buses.co.uk

Introducing enhancements to our Night Bus Network

Our two brand-new night routes, the N29 and N48, will join the existing services of N1, N5, N7, N12, N14 and N25.

www.buses.co.uk

To summarise these are the main new routes and changes that are happening:

• N1 - This night bus is extended 24/7 hourly up to Woodingdean in the Eastern end. It currently only runs to the Western part of the city. So it is now basically becoming a combination of the daytime 1 and 6 and 22 routes.

• N29 - New night bus service running 24/7 hourly between Brighton and Lewes on seven nights a week. I am very surprised that an average small town like Lewes is getting an hourly 24/7 night bus. It is quite a rural area surrounding the town. It also means the tiny rural village of St Ann Without (less than 100 people live there) will get a 24/7 bus service. Oddly it is numbered N29 instead of N28 which was mentioned in the ESCC document. The short workings in the daytime from Brighton to Lewes are numbered 28 so surely N28 would make more sense.

• N48 - New night bus running 24/7 hourly between Brighton and both the Lower Bevendean and East Moulsecoomb areas. This is a combination of the daytime 48 and 49 routes. I am surprised they chose N48 instead of N49 as the daytime 49 is a much more frequent and major route compared to the 48 service.

Monday the 13th of April in about two weeks time is when the above changes will get implemented.

Nothing about an improved frequency to the N12 and N14 which was talked about in the ESCC document.

 

[johncrossley]

• N29 - New night bus service running 24/7 hourly between Brighton and Lewes on seven nights a week. I am very surprised that an average small town like Lewes is getting an hourly 24/7 night bus. It is quite a rural area surrounding the town. It also means the tiny little village of St Anne Without (less than 100 people live there) will get a 24/7 bus service. Oddly it is numbered N29 instead of N28 which was mentioned in the ESCC document. The short workings in the daytime from Brighton to Lewes are numbered 28 so surely N28 would make more sense.

Do students live in Lewes, given its proximity to the campuses in Falmer?

 

[stadler]

Do students live in Lewes, given its proximity to the campuses in Falmer?

No not really. I have never noticed many students in the town. Lewes is a very expensive place to live. It is not the sort of place you would find student housing. The students are mostly along the Lewes Road corridor in Brighton and other parts of the city.

 

[Mark L]

Personally, I think the council should have simply bought Brighton & Hove buses. I understand why most councils are going for franchising, but frankly, in the right time and place, a municipal bus company would be better. Brighton is one of those places. Though mostly, because any elected official with any sense would want to keep the current expertise. But in a practical sense, I think Brighton's buses are second to none country wide. The only thing that could be greatly improved is bus priority, congestion and cheaper fares, all of which the council has full control of today.

Buying Brighton & Hove would probably cost the council many tens of millions (perhaps more). Its most recent accounts showed annual turnover of £138m and profits of just under £10m. The value of its asssets is shown as over £60m.

Given the many pressures on local government funding I can’t see how such a move could be justified particularly as you have noted the bus operation is already well managed. I’m not sure that “municipalising” it would necessarily make things materially better. I’m not sure it’s correct to say that “most” councils are going down the franchising route. If anything the enhanced partnership seems to be the preferred approach outside the metropolitan areas.

 

[nick291]

Buying Brighton & Hove would probably cost the council many tens of millions (perhaps more). Its most recent accounts showed annual turnover of £138m and profits of just under £10m. The value of its asssets is shown as over £60m.

Given the many pressures on local government funding I can’t see how such a move could be justified particularly as you have noted the bus operation is already well managed. I’m not sure that “municipalising” it would necessarily make things materially better. I’m not sure it’s correct to say that “most” councils are going down the franchising route. If anything the enhanced partnership seems to be the preferred approach outside the metropolitan areas.

Where I live in Bristol is an enhanced partnership and it seems to be working well. B&H could do the same, building on the success it already has. As long as they kept BH5 livery as a regional identity with some council stickers then I see no reason it couldn't work.

 

[Sussexscot]

True, but there's not much money in villages. I suspect any small traffic generation here will be outweighed by losses due to late running reducing reliability for existing users.

I think the most promising market here might be East Grinstead to Gatwick direct, but even here the route will suffer the same congestion as all traffic on the A264. (Now if the Crawley Down to EG old railway were converted to a dedicated busway that might be a real game changer!)

Don't forget the £5.00 fee for simply driving into the airport complex. Yes, you can drop off for free in the Long Term Car Park and then use the Car Park bus service also for free. My family now drops off and picks up from Three Bridges station as the train fare is a lot less than £5 and there are plenty of trains (except in the dead of night).

 

[buslad1988]

Where I live in Bristol is an enhanced partnership and it seems to be working well. B&H could do the same, building on the success it already has. As long as they kept BH5 livery as a regional identity with some council stickers then I see no reason it couldn't work.

Enhanced partnerships are great and councils certainly talk the talk. Operators usually keep their half of the bargain… but when it comes to bus priority and upsetting car users most local authorities tend to back track pretty quickly. Which is rich; considering the root cause of poor punctuality is lack of priority measures… resulting in longer journey times, and either lower frequencies or higher running costs depending on how the operator has to react. Then resulting in fare increases; with staff wages and NI rates etc playing their part too.

Even municipally owned bus companies have issues with all of the above! It’s just another way for councillors to try and secure votes.

 

[duncombec]

Personally, I think the council should have simply bought Brighton & Hove buses. I understand why most councils are going for franchising, but frankly, in the right time and place, a municipal bus company would be better. Brighton is one of those places. Though mostly, because any elected official with any sense would want to keep the current expertise. But in a practical sense, I think Brighton's buses are second to none country wide. The only thing that could be greatly improved is bus priority, congestion and cheaper fares, all of which the council has full control of today.

In fact, the opposite occurred... the former municipal, Brighton Blue Bus, sold out to Go-Ahead! The operator and council work quite well together, so I'm not quite sure why politicians suddenly want to upend that.

• N29 - New night bus service running 24/7 hourly between Brighton and Lewes on seven nights a week. I am very surprised that an average small town like Lewes is getting an hourly 24/7 night bus. It is quite a rural area surrounding the town. It also means the tiny little village of St Anne Without (less than 100 people live there) will get a 24/7 bus service. Oddly it is numbered N29 instead of N28 which was mentioned in the ESCC document. The short workings in the daytime from Brighton to Lewes are numbered 28 so surely N28 would make more sense.

That's a bit of a selective wording! It's not at though it passes through a village centre (in fact, Google doesn't even list it on the map, I had to search for it). It's a random bus stop on the side of the A27!

Do students live in Lewes, given its proximity to the campuses in Falmer?

I suspect it may have rather more to do with getting the residents of Lewes home after a night on the town city in Brighton.

 

[stadler]

In fact, the opposite occurred... the former municipal, Brighton Blue Bus, sold out to Go-Ahead! The operator and council work quite well together, so I'm not quite sure why politicians suddenly want to upend that.


That's a bit of a selective wording! It's not at though it passes through a village centre (in fact, Google doesn't even list it on the map, I had to search for it). It's a random bus stop on the side of the A27!


I suspect it may have rather more to do with getting the residents of Lewes home after a night on the town city in Brighton.

St Ann Without is more of a rural hamlet than a village. But it has its own St Ann Without Parish Council and is its own civil parish so i count it as a village. But my point was that it may well be the smallest place in the UK to get a 24/7 bus service. I am almost certain that it will hold the title of the civil parish with the smallest population to have a 24/7 bus service.

I suppose another good thing about the N29 night bus is that all the Brighton passengers that constantly get in the wrong portion of the 00:02 train from London Victoria and end up in Lewes will now have a £3.00 bus ride to get home instead of an expensive £40.00 to £50.00 taxi ride. That train is notorious for Brighton passengers ending up in Lewes (or even Eastbourne sometimes) after joining the wrong portion.

 

[izvor]

Personally, I think the council should have simply bought Brighton & Hove buses. I understand why most councils are going for franchising, but frankly, in the right time and place, a municipal bus company would be better. Brighton is one of those places.

I’m not sure that “municipalising” it would necessarily make things materially better. I’m not sure it’s correct to say that “most” councils are going down the franchising route. If anything the enhanced partnership seems to be the preferred approach outside the metropolitan areas.

Indeed, if it ain't broke... I'm no fan of privatisation but I'm sure there are many people in towns further east who cast envious glances at their Sussex neighbours, who appear to have proactive bus companies with good local authority relationships, and are not terrified of (or prohibited from) expansion. I think any salvation for them is more likely to come from GoAhead's gradual expansion east than a sudden change in corporate (or council) policy. But things do change, up and down.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

In Brighton the status quo (albeit I would argue, preferably with additional investment in bus signal priority, bus lanes and cheaper fares) may well be preferable to both franchising and municipal ownership. That said, if we except the political tides turning in favour of public ownership and/or control, setting aside the council’s fiscal constraints, I believe more knowhow and operational efficiency will be lost in a move to franchising than if B&H is brought in house, so to speak. Additionally, the (granted limited) recent evidence of municipal bus companies in the UK appears to be rather encouraging (Reading, Nottingham, Lothian). Thus, ironically, in Brighton at least, bus franchising may cause a great deal of fragmentation and disintegration compared to the thoroughly decent status quo.

But it seems that all this is a lost cause anyway and bus franchising will still happen, regardless. Mind you, I wonder if in Brighton the public may actually reject the proposition in the consultation phase? Unlike elsewhere in the UK they can hardly say “well, it can’t get much worse than now, can it?” or “pretty much anything will be an improvement over the current state of things”. More a “I’m really displeased with my errr… thoroughly decent service that actually does not leave much to be desired… oh...”

 

[MotCO]

In Brighton the status quo (albeit I would argue, preferably with additional investment in bus signal priority, bus lanes and cheaper fares) may well be preferable to both franchising and municipal ownership. That said, if we except the political tides turning in favour of public ownership and/or control, setting aside the council’s fiscal constraints, I believe more knowhow and operational efficiency will be lost in a move to franchising than if B&H is brought in house, so to speak. Additionally, the (granted limited) recent evidence of municipal bus companies in the UK appears to be rather encouraging (Reading, Nottingham, Lothian). Thus, ironically, in Brighton at least, bus franchising may cause a great deal of fragmentation and disintegration compared to the thoroughly decent status quo.

But it seems that all this is a lost cause anyway and bus franchising will still happen, regardless. Mind you, I wonder if in Brighton the public may actually reject the proposition in the consultation phase? Unlike elsewhere in the UK they can hardly say “well, it can’t get much worse than now, can it?” or “pretty much anything will be an improvement over the current state of things”. More a “I’m really displeased with my errr… thoroughly decent service that actually does not leave much to be desired… oh...”

It would be really interesting to know how much additional investment was required in Manchester to implement the Bee Network. It is complicated because some (a lot?) of the investment was in new electric buses, but I wonder what the difference between the former contracted out service cost compared with the new network on a like for like basis, plus the cost of preparatory work, cost of depot acquisition etc. would be. Therefore, would a bus franchised service in Brighton cost more (or a lot more) than the current service cost?

The only advantage to bus franchising I could see would be the inter-availability of tickets on all buses, i.e. B&H/Metrobus, Stagecoach, Compass and any others, but surely the cost of that would be less than the cost of upheaval caused by franchising. If the Council want to introduce any new routes or amend existing services to serve what they perceive to be gaps in service, surely a conversation / tender with service providers would achieve this.

 

[Man of Kent]

It would be really interesting to know how much additional investment was required in Manchester to implement the Bee Network. It is complicated because some (a lot?) of the investment was in new electric buses, but I wonder what the difference between the former contracted out service cost compared with the new network on a like for like basis, plus the cost of preparatory work, cost of depot acquisition etc. would be. Therefore, would a bus franchised service in Brighton cost more (or a lot more) than the current service cost?

The only advantage to bus franchising I could see would be the inter-availability of tickets on all buses, i.e. B&H/Metrobus, Stagecoach, Compass and any others, but surely the cost of that would be less than the cost of upheaval caused by franchising. If the Council want to introduce any new routes or amend existing services to serve what they perceive to be gaps in service, surely a conversation / tender with service providers would achieve this.

The ongoing operational cost of the Bee Network is roughly double what Greater Manchester previously spent on tendered services and concessionary fares. The net cost this year is £227m, compared to around £100m pre-Bee Network; not an ideal comparison, but as near to a like-for-like as can be.

The capital cost of acquiring depots and buses has been enormous, and I'm not sure that it has entirely been aired in public. It certainly would not have been possible with only locally raised funds - almost all of it has come from central government grant. TfGM accounts show a capital spend of £169m on bus franchising in 2024-25; around £40m of that was for depots.

In additon, TfGM has to keep its fingers crossed that when the government-funded new buses need replacing, there will be more government funding available. That's not a scenario that any of the franchising assessments have explicitly spelt out, other than West Midlands, where future farebox revenue has been cited (although that also seems to be the source of all sorts of future expenditure).

The 2024-25 accounts also show that

since April 2024, the transport levy has increased by around 4% to meet the ongoing costs of running the Bee Network

(page 18 of this 88 page document on the TfGM website https://downloads.ctfassets.net/nv7...0e83/Narrative_report_and_AGS_2024_25__1_.pdf)

I suspect very few politicians understand these financial risks that franchising transfers from the private to the public sector.

 

[mattb7tl]

The ongoing operational cost of the Bee Network is roughly double what Greater Manchester previously spent on tendered services and concessionary fares. The net cost this year is £227m, compared to around £100m pre-Bee Network; not an ideal comparison, but as near to a like-for-like as can be.

The £100m baseline is not a fair like for like comparison, and the accounts themselves explain why. While TfGM administered schemes like BSOG and the Coronavirus Bus Service Support Grant, both are explicitly recorded in the 2021/22 accounts as agency transactions, excluded from the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement by design. The money flowed through TfGM to operators but contributed nothing to the net cost figures on which the £100m is based. The true pre-Bee Network public subsidy was therefore higher than the headline figure, but structured in a way that made it invisible in the accounts that comparison draws from.

The more honest measure of the networks financial health is farebox recovery, which sits at 47% against a national average of 50%, a marginal gap that suggests the Bee Network is performing in a broadly healthy position, not the runaway cost spiral the doubling narrative implies.

 

[SW Buses]

The £100m baseline is not a fair like for like comparison, and the accounts themselves explain why. While TfGM administered schemes like BSOG and the Coronavirus Bus Service Support Grant, both are explicitly recorded in the 2021/22 accounts as agency transactions, excluded from the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement by design. The money flowed through TfGM to operators but contributed nothing to the net cost figures on which the £100m is based. The true pre-Bee Network public subsidy was therefore higher than the headline figure, but structured in a way that made it invisible in the accounts that comparison draws from.

The more honest measure of the networks financial health is farebox recovery, which sits at 47% against a national average of 50%, a marginal gap that suggests the Bee Network is performing in a broadly healthy position, not the runaway cost spiral the doubling narrative implies.

But fare box recovery alone doesn’t show the picture? You would also need to consider the baseline provision of the network. So is that fare box recovery from the same PVR/network. If the network has more service in it, then that would not be a level comparison?

 

[mattb7tl]

But fare box recovery alone doesn’t show the picture? You would also need to consider the baseline provision of the network. So is that fare box recovery from the same PVR/network. If the network has more service in it, then that would not be a level comparison?

Nobody is claiming farebox recovery is a perfect measure, but it does directly counter the narrative that the network is burning through public money recklessly. Sitting at 47% against a national average of 50%, while simultaneously holding fares down, growing the network, and increasing mileage at nearly three times the national rate, suggests a system that is performing within reasonable financial parameters, not spiralling out of control. If the cost were genuinely doubling for no return, you would expect to see farebox recovery collapsing, not holding broadly in line with the national average.

 

[Cesarcollie]

Nobody is claiming farebox recovery is a perfect measure, but it does directly counter the narrative that the network is burning through public money recklessly. Sitting at 47% against a national average of 50%, while simultaneously holding fares down, growing the network, and increasing mileage at nearly three times the national rate, suggests a system that is performing within reasonable financial parameters, not spiralling out of control. If the cost were genuinely doubling for no return, you would expect to see farebox recovery collapsing, not holding broadly in line with the national average.

And it is unlikely firebox recovery will reflect any capital costs. It’s a bit like London where allegedly the tube network now subsidises the buses. May or may not be true, but bus costs include the cost of vehicles, depots, renewal and replacement etc. Tube costs only cover day-to-day running, and as we well know, any replacemen/refurbishmen/other capex relies on getting out the begging bowl to central government.

 

[DGP]

Nobody is claiming farebox recovery is a perfect measure, but it does directly counter the narrative that the network is burning through public money recklessly. Sitting at 47% against a national average of 50%, while simultaneously holding fares down, growing the network, and increasing mileage at nearly three times the national rate, suggests a system that is performing within reasonable financial parameters, not spiralling out of control. If the cost were genuinely doubling for no return, you would expect to see farebox recovery collapsing, not holding broadly in line with the national average.

Given that since privatisation of the Manchester network there has been severely trimmed then increasing mileage by three times the national rate, whilst very laudable and something the Bee Network should be really proud of, it's been relatively easy to achieve. But whilst any mileage increase in Brighton would obviously be welcome, it would be difficult to achieve that Manchester rate of expansion given the already very good network and route coverage that B&H already have.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Nobody is claiming farebox recovery is a perfect measure, but it does directly counter the narrative that the network is burning through public money recklessly. Sitting at 47% against a national average of 50%, while simultaneously holding fares down, growing the network, and increasing mileage at nearly three times the national rate, suggests a system that is performing within reasonable financial parameters, not spiralling out of control. If the cost were genuinely doubling for no return, you would expect to see farebox recovery collapsing, not holding broadly in line with the national average.

I don't know if that is the narrative.

The reality is that Greater Manchester received a large dowry in order to set up the initial scheme including the purchase of various assets and the apparatus to manage the network. So I agree that looking at that is a bit of a misnomer. My greater caution is that we are seeing the very early days of the move to Bee Network so it will take some time for the true effects to be unwound (e.g. part years of revenue from different tranches).

However, I do think that whilst 47% vs 50% doesn't sound like a large figure, in terms of somewhere the size of Greater Manchester, that is quite a gap in monetary terms. Moreover, I can't quite see the connection or otherwise between cost increase and farebox recovery collapsing? It's just that there is an increasing gap between costs and farebox, and that is having to be bridged by more local public money which is what TfGM are saying in increasing the transport levy.

Given that since privatisation of the Manchester network there has been severely trimmed then increasing mileage by three times the national rate, whilst very laudable and something the Bee Network should be really proud of, it's been relatively easy to achieve. But whilst any mileage increase in Brighton would obviously be welcome, it would be difficult to achieve that Manchester rate of expansion given the already very good network and route coverage that B&H already have.

As for the increase in mileage... well, some of that has been additional resource on existing routes to counter traffic congestion (I think 135, 8 and 53 were routes that were impacted) so that will be more mileage but likely little additional revenue. Additional mileage has also been added with improved evening and Sunday frequencies and it'll be interesting to see how much of that is dilution of the existing patronage and how much is generating new ridership.


Certainly, I don't really see what renationalisation of Brighton's buses is going to give that is fundamentally better than what they have now, except that they could use the profits from the buses to fund other parts of the council. Oh, and "Take Back Control" (TM - Dominic Cummings). Brighton has benefitted from a strong local operator with an incentive to grow their business, and a progressive local council that was prepared to introduce extensive bus priority.

 

[Flange Squeal]

Route One magazine have reported the acquisition of RDH Coaches.

Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company has acquired East Sussex operator RDH Coaches.

The deal will see RDH Coaches, which is based in Wivelsfield near Lewes, integrated into Brighton and Hove’s existing Spirit of Sussex coaching arm.

The purchase adds 15 vehicles to the Spirit of Sussex fleet, taking the total to 53, alongside bringing an additional 12 employees into the business. The latter will relocate to the company’s Ringmer depot.

RDH Coaches’ portfolio includes private hire work and school contracts, which will now be delivered under Brighton and Hove ownership. The company says there are no immediate changes planned to services or existing agreements.

The move forms part of a broader push by Go-Ahead and its subsidiaries to grow their presence in the coach sector, building complementary revenue streams to core bus operations.

Says Rupert Cox, interim Managing Director of Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company: “This acquisition represents an exciting opportunity to enhance our long‑term growth strategy and strengthen our position in the local coaching market. I look forward to welcoming all of the new team members on board.”

Source: https://www.route-one.net/news/brighton-and-hove-expands-coach-operations-with-rdh-coaches-purchase/

 

[Mrwerdna1]

(...) The move forms part of a broader push by Go-Ahead and its subsidiaries to grow their presence in the coach sector, building complementary revenue streams to core bus operations. (...)

I suppose this here is the only real downside and potential risk of keeping the current private model for B & H (i.e. Go-Ahead) in place. They are, undoubtedly, operating a very fine bus service in Brighton at the minute. But as they are a still a private company seeking to make a profit, priorities can (and often do) change and evolve over time.

In general terms, this trend of integration is probably good news for passengers, but still something worth keeping an eye on.

If I were a member of the council in B & H I would perhaps suggest keeping the current arrangement (with more subsidy for lower fares, more bus lanes and signal priority) in place, with the threat of a move to franchising if B & H do not fulfil their enhanced partnership promises and/or service levels greatly deteriorate. Best of both worlds?

 

[buslad1988]

If I were a member of the council in B & H I would perhaps suggest keeping the current arrangement (with more subsidy for lower fares, more bus lanes and signal priority) in place, with the threat of a move to franchising if B & H do not fulfil their enhanced partnership promises and/or service levels greatly deteriorate. Best of both worlds?

That certainly would be the best of both worlds. However, it all just seems unnecessary. It’s almost like B&H council are looking for a solution to a problem which doesn’t currently exist.

The timing of this smacks like it’s more to get votes at the ballot box than anything else. The usual private = bad, govt owned = good. Guess they’re maybe trying to jump on the bandwagon of other places with mayors etc. All very well until the cost of everything is revealed and despite maybe having slightly cheaper fares, you’ll be paying more in taxes to cover the cost… regardless of whether you actually use the bus or not!

 

[Sussexwatch]

The franchising announcement has not gone down well in Brighton & Hove. Most comments on social media and in the local press have defended B&H Buses and criticised the Council. It won't be a surprise the B&H Buses has a very good reputation amongst most bus users but the council doesn't. People see that many of the real time information signs provided by the Council don't work properly, and haven't done for months since a new contractor was appointed. The busy bus stops and heritage shelters in Old Steine by the Royal Pavilion were relocated and left without a shelter or real time sign over the winter. There is one shelter now and the delay wasn't of the Council's making but people will blame them. They mention other things like their bins are not collected regularly and fear what could happen to bus services under council control.

In recent times B&H buses has introduced new two new all day express routes and is expanding its night bus network this month, with more improvements planned for June and has introduced its first ZEBRA funded electric buses on the most frequent cross city route this week. Virtually every route runs every day and all evening too, not many cities can claim that. B&H Buses seems to be doing everything right so why the Council, or at least the Council leader wants to take control is baffling and suggests a lack of understanding to me.

 

[Mark L]

The franchising announcement has not gone down well in Brighton & Hove. Most comments on social media and in the local press have defended B&H Buses and criticised the Council. It won't be a surprise the B&H Buses has a very good reputation amongst most bus users but the council doesn't. People see that many of the real time information signs provided by the Council don't work properly, and haven't done for months since a new contractor was appointed. The busy bus stops and heritage shelters in Old Steine by the Royal Pavilion were relocated and left without a shelter or real time sign over the winter. There is one shelter now and the delay wasn't of the Council's making but people will blame them. They mention other things like their bins are not collected regularly and fear what could happen to bus services under council control.

In recent times B&H buses has introduced new two new all day express routes and is expanding its night bus network this month, with more improvements planned for June and has introduced its first ZEBRA funded electric buses on the most frequent cross city route this week. Virtually every route runs every day and all evening too, not many cities can claim that. B&H Buses seems to be doing everything right so why the Council, or at least the Council leader wants to take control is baffling and suggests a lack of understanding to me.

There’s a reasonably objective assessment here https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2026/03/30/labour-resurrects-risky-bus-franchising-plan/

 

[8ace]

I will reserve judgment on the Old Steine situation until Valley Gardens stage 3 is completed. In the meantime the best thing the council could do for the bus network is sorting out the bottleneck around the station especially at teatime. Whilst the the 3X has proved popular and is a welcome addition I think it’s only added to the congestion there. Maybe the changes to the 18 will stop it going there which may alleviate the issue somewhat. As someone who travels through there every day a quick win would be more rigorous enforcement of taxis dropping people of at the front of the station blocking bus stops/holding up traffic.

 

[Park47515]

Details are sparse, but East Sussex Council have said that there are changes to the 271/272 coming in early May

Service number
271
Route
Crawley-Haywards Heath-Burgess Hill-Brighton
Changes to current service
Minor timetable changes of up to 10 mins.
Some services now run as route 272

Service number272
RouteCrawley-Burgess Hill-Royal Sussex County Hospital
Changes to current serviceNew Sat evening journeys and a new Sunday service.
Minor timetable changes of up to 10 mins.
Some journeys now run as route 271.
Service provided byMetrobus with some funding from West Sussex County Council.
https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roads...s-services/lewes-district-bus-service-changes

The Saturday evening changes are potentially rather positive, considering how the service currently finishes rather early.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

604, B&H's first Electroliner (of 29?) had its first day of service on April 1st, on line 7, though it has apparently not been operating since April 2nd. Teething issues maybe?

 

[Park47515]

604, B&H's first Electroliner (of 29?) had its first day of service on April 1st, though it has apparently not been operating since April 2nd. Teething issues maybe?

Another bus crashed into it, causing some damage. Nothing to do with the Electroliner itself.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Another bus crashed into it, causing some damage. Nothing to do with the Electroliner itself.

Ah, oh dear. Hope they get it up and running again soon.

 

[Bwsbro]

CBW are reporting that Brighton & Hove have acquired RDH Coaches of Lewes

https://cbwmagazine.com/bh-acquires-rdh-coaches/