East Anglia Bus Scene

[borage]

What was the reason for rejecting the planning app?

Just looking on Google Maps, the depot looks a bit of an eyesore in what otherwise looks like a nice little village.

They hadn't done a bat survey, the occupants of the new houses would be reliant on private vehicles, and other things: https://publicaccess.braintree.gov....s.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=TDMLIHBFHE100

Reason 1
The application site is located outside of the defined development boundary for Sible Hedingham and is therefore within the countryside for planning policy purposes. The proposed erection of seven dwellings would constitute inappropriate residential development in the countryside and would conflict with the spatial strategy of the Development Plan, which seeks to direct new residential development to sustainable locations within or adjoining existing settlements. In addition future occupiers would be reliant on travel by private vehicle given the site is not within a reasonable or safe walking/cycling distance to nearby facilities and amenities. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies SP1, SP3, LPP1 and LPP42 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, by reason of its depth, layout, scale and siting, project built form into the open countryside and create a discordant, urbanising and poorly integrated form of development which would fail to respond positively to the established linear pattern of development along Wethersfield Road. The proposal would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to Policies SP3, SP7, LPP1, LPP35, LPP52 and LPP67 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason 2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of highway safety, efficiency and accessibility. In particular, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that suitable on-site turning provision would be available for the Type C dwellings to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. In the absence of such provision, the development would be likely to result in vehicles reversing onto Wethersfield Road, to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy LPP52 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033, and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason 3
Insufficient ecological information has been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to determine the likely impacts of the proposed development on European Protected Species, specifically bats. Buildings proposed for demolition have been identified as having potential to support roosting bats, but the required bat emergence survey has not been undertaken. In the absence of this information, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that protected species would not be harmed, or that appropriate mitigation could be secured. The proposal therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with the Council's statutory duties in respect of protected species and is contrary to Policy LPP66 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013- 2033 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

[Wawanesa]

What was the reason for rejecting the planning app?

Just looking on Google Maps, the depot looks a bit of an eyesore in what otherwise looks like a nice little village.

If you look at the pre 2012 Streetview on Google Maps, you will see how smartly the depot was kept in the days of D.R.MacGregor MBE BSc(Econ), as indeed were the buses. The depot is in fact well out of the village and the road to it has steep sides with no pavement. It was originally a brickworks, then a chicken farm until A.E. Letch moved his buses there in the 1940s. The house in front of it was the home of the foreman of the brickworks and those near itwere built for the workers.

 

[Russel]

If you look at the pre 2012 Streetview on Google Maps, you will see how smartly the depot was kept in the days of D.R.MacGregor MBE BSc(Econ), as indeed were the buses. The depot is in fact well out of the village and the road to it has steep sides with no pavement. It was originally a brickworks, then a chicken farm until A.E. Letch moved his buses there in the 1940s. The house in front of it was the home of the foreman of the brickworks and those near itwere built for the workers.

Interesting history lesson, thanks!

The depot did look very smart back in 2011, the recent streetview really doesn't look good.

 

[Edvid]

Loads of changes to First Essex services on 26 July, including a cross-boundary extension of the B1 to Harold Wood via the A127.

Service changes - 26th July 2026

Simpler routes, more frequent buses, and new connections to get you where you need to go. How To Travel on Your Service A quick guide to all changes on your routes – new services, replacements, frequency updates, and timetable adjustments.

www.firstbus.co.uk

C1	Keep travelling as you do today! Your timetable is improving, with extra daytime journeys up to every 10 minutes between Chelmsford Bus Station and Broomfield Hospital, plus later evening buses Monday to Saturday.
C2	Your service is being extended! C2 now continues beyond the city centre to Great Baddow (Readers Corner), replacing the daytime C7.
C3	Your service is being extended! C3 now continues beyond the city centre to the new Beaulieu Park Station.
C4	Your service is being replaced by new Service C5! It runs the same Moulsham Lodge to Writtle corridor as one continuous through-service, with no need to change at the city centre.
C5	Keep travelling as you do today, with an improved frequency of every 20–25 minutes at midday.
C7	Your daytime route is changing slightly, now running via Beehive Lane and Duffield Road. Evening journeys are renumbered – see C57 below.
C57	Your evening service is being renumbered to C7. The route stays the same.
C8	Your route is changing to a new circular loop via Beaulieu, Beaulieu Park and Brackenden Drive. See our route map for full details.
C9	Your route is changing to a new circular loop, working together with the revised C8. See our route map for full details.
C10	Your route is changing slightly to serve Lawn Lane, Waveney Drive and Arbour Lane, picking up the former C11 area.
C11	Your service is being withdrawn. Most of your journey is now covered by the revised C10.
14	Your service will no longer be run by First Bus. A replacement is being introduced by Stephensons of Essex.
15	Your service will no longer be run by First Bus. A replacement circular service is being introduced by Stephensons of Essex.
31 / 331 / 332	Keep travelling as you do today, with minor timetable adjustments and brand new Friday and Saturday late-night journeys to and from Burnham on Crouch.
47	Keep travelling as you do today, with additional early evening journeys from Broomfield Hospital.
z75	Brand new! A new seasonal weekend service connecting Colchester to Colchester Zoo, running summer Saturdays and Sundays.
102	Your daytime and Sunday journeys continue as normal. Evening journeys will be run by Central Connect.
336	Good news! A Sunday service is returning to this route, running every 2 hours.
351	Your service is being extended! 351 now continues beyond Brentwood to Basildon and Basildon Hospital.
407 / 417	Your service will no longer be run by First Bus. A replacement is being introduced by Stephensons of Essex.
570	This school service is being withdrawn due to low passenger numbers. Alternative options are being explored for September 2026.
X70	Your afternoon journey is being withdrawn, linked to changes on Service 570.
B1	Your service is being extended! B1 now continues beyond Laindon to Harold Wood Station, with buses every 20 minutes Monday to Saturday.
B2	Your route is changing slightly – the Langdon Hills section is now covered by new Service B6. Evening journeys are renumbered to B2E.
B3	Keep travelling as you do today! Sunday daytime journeys are running more frequently, with no change to the rest of your timetable.
B6	Brand new! A new route connecting Basildon Hospital, Basildon and Laindon via Langdon Hills.
7	Your daytime journeys continue as normal. Evening journeys will be run by Arriva.
7A	This evening service is being withdrawn, linked to changes on Service 7.
9	Your service will no longer be run by First Bus. Tendered journeys are being introduced by NIBS Buses, and the extended Service 351 offers a direct alternative between Basildon and Brentwood.
63	Your service will no longer be run by First Bus. A replacement is being introduced by Stephensons of Essex.
251	Your service will no longer be run by First Bus. A replacement is being introduced by Central Connect.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Rumour has it that TNS have won the Suffolk One contract from First.

It seems some things never change in the Chambers and Hedingham operation, no matter who owns it, continually expanding, continually chasing additional work and taxpayer funding with local authorities who are happy to hand it over no matter what whilst the existing operation suffers with poor cleanliness, a very tired fleet and driver shortages.

No doubt TMS put in a cheaper bid than First to win this contract from them.

 

[JKP]

Rumour has it that TNS have won the Suffolk One contract from First.

It seems some things never change in the Chambers and Hedingham operation, no matter who owns it, continually expanding, continually chasing additional work and taxpayer funding with local authorities who are happy to hand it over no matter what whilst the existing operation suffers with poor cleanliness, a very tired fleet and driver shortages.

No doubt TMS put in a cheaper bid than First to win this contract from them.

Surely operators must continually tender for contracts in order to survive. Have you seen the tender specification? It may specify new or a maximum age on vehicles at the start of or during the contract period.

Council contract awards do not normally in my experience take account of ‘cleanliness’, or availability of driving staff. There should though be penalties for non operation of contracts within the contractors control.

 

[Stan Drews]

No doubt TMS put in a cheaper bid than First to win this contract from them.

That’s generally how the tendering process works!
It could even be that First put in a more expensive bid than TMS to lose this contract to them.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Surely operators must continually tender for contracts in order to survive. Have you seen the tender specification? It may specify new or a maximum age on vehicles at the start of or during the contract period.

Council contract awards do not normally in my experience take account of ‘cleanliness’, or availability of driving staff. There should though be penalties for non operation of contracts within the contractors control.

But surely quality of service needs to come into it as well as after all buses are supposed to be run for the public?

You may not know the former Chambers operation but it's got a large amount of vehicles around 20 years out which are very well worn inside and outside, aren't cleaned very frequently and has been the operator who suffers the most from cancellations due to driving staff in the region who they pay a comparatively poor wage to compared to other operators. All of that is going to save money so of course they are going to win tenders. But that is not going to get people out of their cars is it?

The race to the bottom in term of the lowest cost and the cheapest bidder is never going to provide a good service. And it must be frustrating to see those operators who clean their vehicles every day inside and out, take immense pride in their fleet and make sure every journey runs unless completely impossible and pay their drivers a decent wage, see other operators spending as little as they can get away with and cancelling services beating them time and time again on tenders.

SCC have in particular been happy to give TMS more and more money for more routes and extended routes, despite the fact that the existing services that they are already getting hard earned taxpayers money for are not anywhere near the reliability that many customers expect their bus service to be. It should be clear to any operator that if they can't operate their current contracts to a certain standard, no more public money until they do. I know that's not so easy to enforce, but that shows that those drawing up the contracts are not making the penalties serious enough.

 

[_sSamuel]

Rumour has it that TNS have won the Suffolk One contract from First.

It seems some things never change in the Chambers and Hedingham operation, no matter who owns it, continually expanding, continually chasing additional work and taxpayer funding with local authorities who are happy to hand it over no matter what whilst the existing operation suffers with poor cleanliness, a very tired fleet and driver shortages.

No doubt TMS put in a cheaper bid than First to win this contract from them.

This would be a massive blow to First, considering that many duties are worked around the Suffolk One services (such as having different duties throughout the week as the college doesn't have a consistent, daily end time) and more importantly, just how much revenue this provides to Ipswich depot. Last summer's service changes were based around focusing their network on their Suffolk One operation and funded (whethere they be school or BSIP-funded) services, as they're clearly where the money is in comparison to their commercial routes. Maybe it's time for First's Star Lane depot to merge with SPS's new depot on Ransomes Estate, and beging to cut costs by sharing depot space, operational teams, HR teams, etc., or I fear for the viability of First's operation in Ipswich.

 

[Russel]

But surely quality of service needs to come into it as well as after all buses are supposed to be run for the public?

You may not know the former Chambers operation but it's got a large amount of vehicles around 20 years out which are very well worn inside and outside, aren't cleaned very frequently and has been the operator who suffers the most from cancellations due to driving staff in the region who they pay a comparatively poor wage to compared to other operators. All of that is going to save money so of course they are going to win tenders. But that is not going to get people out of their cars is it?

The race to the bottom in term of the lowest cost and the cheapest bidder is never going to provide a good service. And it must be frustrating to see those operators who clean their vehicles every day inside and out, take immense pride in their fleet and make sure every journey runs unless completely impossible and pay their drivers a decent wage, see other operators spending as little as they can get away with and cancelling services beating them time and time again on tenders.

SCC have in particular been happy to give TMS more and more money for more routes and extended routes, despite the fact that the existing services that they are already getting hard earned taxpayers money for are not anywhere near the reliability that many customers expect their bus service to be. It should be clear to any operator that if they can't operate their current contracts to a certain standard, no more public money until they do. I know that's not so easy to enforce, but that shows that those drawing up the contracts are not making the penalties serious enough.

You raise some good points here and highlight issues that apply to the wider bus industry too, outside of Anglia and TMS...

 

[JKP]

But surely quality of service needs to come into it as well as after all buses are supposed to be run for the public?

You may not know the former Chambers operation but it's got a large amount of vehicles around 20 years out which are very well worn inside and outside, aren't cleaned very frequently and has been the operator who suffers the most from cancellations due to driving staff in the region who they pay a comparatively poor wage to compared to other operators. All of that is going to save money so of course they are going to win tenders. But that is not going to get people out of their cars is it?

The race to the bottom in term of the lowest cost and the cheapest bidder is never going to provide a good service. And it must be frustrating to see those operators who clean their vehicles every day inside and out, take immense pride in their fleet and make sure every journey runs unless completely impossible and pay their drivers a decent wage, see other operators spending as little as they can get away with and cancelling services beating them time and time again on tenders.

SCC have in particular been happy to give TMS more and more money for more routes and extended routes, despite the fact that the existing services that they are already getting hard earned taxpayers money for are not anywhere near the reliability that many customers expect their bus service to be. It should be clear to any operator that if they can't operate their current contracts to a certain standard, no more public money until they do. I know that's not so easy to enforce, but that shows that those drawing up the contracts are not making the penalties serious enough.

I understand what you are saying. I recall Chambers prior to it becoming part of Go Ahead. My more recent Anglian experience has been Konectbus which I found acceptable.

Local Authorities do need to raise standards by ensuring that quality scoring is raised above that of price. However, I suspect that certainly for rural shire counties this would see further reduction in provision if costs rose.

It will certainly be interesting to see if TMS can raise the standard of operation. They certainly appear to have their hands full in changing the culture of the companies taken over from Go Ahead. Hopefully they will be supported in this by the local authorities in which they run.

 

[markymark2000]

But surely quality of service needs to come into it as well as after all buses are supposed to be run for the public.

While I do fully agree with what you are saying in general terms, I am not sure how a council or organisation would put it into practise. If any business or authority applied morals to their tendering, after the Stagecoach debacle during the Commonwealth Games (screwing over local areas and services so they could send all the staff and vehicles to the games), they would never win a contract again. Similarly all of the operators who ditched marginal routes through Covid because they knew they could get more money for the route if it was tendered (why run a commercial route marginal when you can win the same route at tender and make a profit), they would have been banned from bidding and winning the routes that they were dropping.

But at the same time, operators do need to be held accountable if they are screwing over over the existing/core routes to take on tenders. Not only because these behaviours create longer standing issues with trust/confidence in the bus network, but it will also make the core network unviable to such a state that yesterdays commercial core, is todays tendered network with how greedy and lazy (promotion to new customers and retention of existing) bus operators have become.

SCC have in particular been happy to give TMS more and more money for more routes and extended routes, despite the fact that the existing services that they are already getting hard earned taxpayers money for are not anywhere near the reliability that many customers expect their bus service to be. It should be clear to any operator that if they can't operate their current contracts to a certain standard, no more public money until they do. I know that's not so easy to enforce, but that shows that those drawing up the contracts are not making the penalties serious enough.

Officially there is a regulator who is meant to deal with these things. But sadly they are too busy sat on their hands rather than regulating (as is typical across all regulators in the UK currently). That's the real issue. Local authorities generally don't care half as much as they should do about people operating contracts on their behalf, and the regulator is so useless and incompetent they couldn't organise a kids party at soft play. Throw the two together, there is no incentive at all for operators to stick to any rules.

Merseytravel seem to have the right idea in terms of tender quality but it doesn't seem to be enforced very well. They have an endless fines list such as bus provided not to contract spec £100, going off route without good reason £100, inadequate supply of emergency tickets £100, failure to provide ticketing equipment in working order and set up correctly etc £200 per time observed, early running of more than 2 minutes £50 fine and non payment for the journey, late running between 6 and 15 minutes without good reason £50 fine. The list goes on. But when it comes to enforcing it and actually fining operators, with the way that some operators there run services, if an operator got all of the fines that they should have, they would have dropped the contract by now as it would be in the huge losses.

 

[buslad1988]

Rumour has it that TNS have won the Suffolk One contract from First.

It seems some things never change in the Chambers and Hedingham operation, no matter who owns it, continually expanding, continually chasing additional work and taxpayer funding with local authorities who are happy to hand it over no matter what whilst the existing operation suffers with poor cleanliness, a very tired fleet and driver shortages.

No doubt TMS put in a cheaper bid than First to win this contract from them.

I think it’s Suffolk One themselves who pay the operators for this rather than the local authority… and they have have very strict criteria. So TMS will come unstuck if they do not live up to expectations! They have purchased some ex Reading Enviro 400’s so maybe these are for that?

Both First and Ipswich Buses should be concerned if it is the case that TMS have won as it begs the question what is their long term intention in the area. Indeed what will the buses be used on inbetween college times? There’s a lot of dead mileage!

TMS appear intent on conquering the east so watch this space…

First themselves atleast will be able to bolster peak time frequencies on their core corridors as they’ll now have vehicles available at these times from September?

 

[stuart81]

Maybe we should wait for something official rather than a unsubstantiated rumour?

I think it’s Suffolk One themselves who pay the operators for this rather than the local authority… and they have have very strict criteria. So TMS will come unstuck if they do not live up to expectations! They have purchased some ex Reading Enviro 400’s so maybe these are for that?

Both First and Ipswich Buses should be concerned if it is the case that TMS have won as it begs the question what is their long term intention in the area. Indeed what will the buses be used on inbetween college times? There’s a lot of dead mileage!

TMS appear intent on conquering the east so watch this space…

First themselves atleast will be able to bolster peak time frequencies on their core corridors as they’ll now have vehicles available at these times from September?

 

[F Great Eastern]

I think it’s Suffolk One themselves who pay the operators for this rather than the local authority… and they have have very strict criteria. So TMS will come unstuck if they do not live up to expectations! They have purchased some ex Reading Enviro 400’s so maybe these are for that?

Both First and Ipswich Buses should be concerned if it is the case that TMS have won as it begs the question what is their long term intention in the area. Indeed what will the buses be used on inbetween college times? There’s a lot of dead mileage!

TMS appear intent on conquering the east so watch this space…

First themselves atleast will be able to bolster peak time frequencies on their core corridors as they’ll now have vehicles available at these times from September?

Are these the 15 year old Enviro 400s that Reading Buses have withdrawn earlier this year? If so it's hardly a massive upgrade on a bunch of 19 year old Omnidekkas and 17 year old Olympuses!

So what they will do is what others have done, put their best and most reliable vehicles on the Suffolk One routes and in the event of a staff shortage, make sure the services with the biggest penalties for non running always run and move the cancellations and the older vehicles to the routes which have funding from SCC where the penalties for not operating don't seem to be stringent enough.

This is exactly what happened last summer, they overstretched themselves at the beginning of the academic year and for months there were frequent cancellations on the routes out of Sudbury area especially but also in the Colchester and Bury areas with many times people being stranded because of it.

Konectbus is not as bad as it's Konnectbuses sibling, the later's fleet is in far worse condition inside and out and older too.

Maybe we should wait for something official rather than a unsubstantiated rumour?

Considering where the rumour came from (a well connected staff member from a certain ooerator) and the fact First have already driven up four StreetDecks to Norwich permanently with more to follow in the next few weeks then that tells you all you need to know about whether it is happening or not.

 

[Wawanesa]

I've no idea whether the rumour is true or not but I can't see how you can operate this contract efficiently unless you have a depot and some other work in the Ipswich area. Some Eastern Counties vehicles seem to stick just to the contract, while others will work ordinary routes during the offpeak and this allows time for driver breaks and vehicle servicing.

Often, local authorities will pressure operators into quoting for contracts in order to force the major companies to keep their prices down. Of course this can backfire if an operator wins a tender but doesn't have the resources to fufill it properly. As F Great Eastern says, that can mean commercial services being cut in order to avoid cancelling school/ college contracts which would incur penalties.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2026 ==

I've just noticed that there is a "reduced service" on Konectbuses routes on the Clacton - Colchester corridor today. No doubt that is indicative of driver shortage.

 

[F Great Eastern]

I've no idea whether the rumour is true or not but I can't see how you can operate this contract efficiently unless you have a depot and some other work in the Ipswich area. Some Eastern Counties vehicles seem to stick just to the contract, while others will work ordinary routes during the offpeak and this allows time for driver breaks and vehicle servicing.

Often, local authorities will pressure operators into quoting for contracts in order to force the major companies to keep their prices down. Of course this can backfire if an operator wins a tender but doesn't have the resources to fufill it properly. As F Great Eastern says, that can mean commercial services being cut in order to avoid cancelling school/ college contracts which would incur penalties.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2026 ==

I've just noticed that there is a "reduced service" on Konectbuses routes on the Clacton - Colchester corridor today. No doubt that is indicative of driver shortage.

Indeed but the fact that the operator chose to tender for a bunch of new routes for schoolkids when they don't even have enough staff for their existing network, means they'll have to rob the services that Peter relies on to pay Paul because if they don't rob Peter then not running a service for Paul is going to cost them a lot of money.

Peter will now get fired from his work because he is constantly late because his bus is cancelled on a regular basis. The fact that they're providing a good service to schoolkids isn't going to help him put money on the table to feed his own kids when he is down the Job Centre signing on as he cannot drive.

We also need to talk about driver pay, because from looking online it does look like Konnectbuses pay less than SPS, First, Ipswich Buses and independents. That would certainly allow them to undercut others on price and win tenders, but also is likely to make it harder to recruit and retain staff.

 

[buslad1988]

We also need to talk about driver pay, because from looking online it does look like Konnectbuses pay less than SPS, First, Ipswich Buses and independents. That would certainly allow them to undercut others on price and win tenders, but also is likely to make it harder to recruit and retain staff.

Existing operators in the Ipswich and East Suffolk area are already concerned with driver recruitment/retention due to Sizewell C - I can see the problem only getting worse before it gets better.

Wouldn’t surprise me if TMS receive some new E400MMC’s for these Suffolk One services - they’ll be wanting to impress them and keep hold of the work in the longer term.

In regard of your complaints around services not operating etc… maybe it’s time for you to start writing to SCC and the traffic commissioner.

 

[stuart81]

Other sources suggest the Streetdecks in Norwich for UEA graduation as they are every year.

Until something official is released, this just seems like again another repetitive excuse to rant about TMS rather than waiting to see what changes especially with the school summer holidays coming.

Are these the 15 year old Enviro 400s that Reading Buses have withdrawn earlier this year? If so it's hardly a massive upgrade on a bunch of 19 year old Omnidekkas and 17 year old Olympuses!

So what they will do is what others have done, put their best and most reliable vehicles on the Suffolk One routes and in the event of a staff shortage, make sure the services with the biggest penalties for non running always run and move the cancellations and the older vehicles to the routes which have funding from SCC where the penalties for not operating don't seem to be stringent enough.

This is exactly what happened last summer, they overstretched themselves at the beginning of the academic year and for months there were frequent cancellations on the routes out of Sudbury area especially but also in the Colchester and Bury areas with many times people being stranded because of it.

Konectbus is not as bad as it's Konnectbuses sibling, the later's fleet is in far worse condition inside and out and older too.



Considering where the rumour came from (a well connected staff member from a certain ooerator) and the fact First have already driven up four StreetDecks to Norwich permanently with more to follow in the next few weeks then that tells you all you need to know about whether it is happening or not.

 

[Wawanesa]

Existing operators in the Ipswich and East Suffolk area are already concerned with driver recruitment/retention due to Sizewell C - I can see the problem only getting worse before it gets better.

Wouldn’t surprise me if TMS receive some new E400MMC’s for these Suffolk One services - they’ll be wanting to impress them and keep hold of the work in the longer term.

In regard of your complaints around services not operating etc… maybe it’s time for you to start writing to SCC and the traffic commissioner.

Realistly, it would't be viable to use new vehicles on Suffolk One contracts. If and when new buses arrive for TMS, they are most needed on the Colchester - Sudbury - Bury St. Edmunds services where currently 55 plate Scanias are working twelve hours a day non stop..

 

[Russel]

I've just noticed that there is a "reduced service" on Konectbuses routes on the Clacton - Colchester corridor today. No doubt that is indicative of driver shortage.

Could also be fleet related, they had a spate of fuel thefts from the depot recently.

Whatever the excuse, it's not going to do their already battered reputation any favours.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Re Suffolk One, I heard a rumour that Ipswich College and West Suffolk College in Bury were tendered together as one contract.
First don't have much out towards Bury and beyond do they? So perhaps they were uncompetitive on that basis?

Having looked at the Ipswich One network, some of the routes do start out towards Kelvedon, Subdury and Clacton where the old Go East Anglia operations have depots so it doesn't seem to suprising that First haven't been successful in one sense.

 

[stuart81]

All four “permanent transfers” are back working in Ipswich today….

Considering where the rumour came from (a well connected staff member from a certain ooerator) and the fact First have already driven up four StreetDecks to Norwich permanently with more to follow in the next few weeks then that tells you all you need to know about whether it is happening or not.

 

[buslad1988]

Changing topic but does anyone know after almost 7 years how the Scania Enviro 400 City’s are performing on the Excel?

I remember at the time of their order and introduction a lot of talk regarding suitability etc. and First trialled a variety of types beforehand.

They must have clocked up a fair few miles now! Presumably they’re reliable as I haven’t seen comments here saying otherwise.

Just wondering what Firsts long term plan will be for ultimate replacement? Presumably electrics aren’t quite there yet? Although with the route broken down a lot more though and opportunity charging utilised it could be feasible.

 

[stuart81]

I’d assumed the biggest obstacle is that the small depot at Kings Lynn would need to be electrified, I think there are only 12 vehicle duties from there. Like you mention, I’m not sure any EV decker has the necessary range given also it’s not really a stop-start route.

Unless First make an exception and buy a batch of diesels, I guess the Scanias will soldier on for quite a few more years

Changing topic but does anyone know after almost 7 years how the Scania Enviro 400 City’s are performing on the Excel?

I remember at the time of their order and introduction a lot of talk regarding suitability etc. and First trialled a variety of types beforehand.

They must have clocked up a fair few miles now! Presumably they’re reliable as I haven’t seen comments here saying otherwise.

Just wondering what Firsts long term plan will be for ultimate replacement? Presumably electrics aren’t quite there yet? Although with the route broken down a lot more though and opportunity charging utilised it could be feasible.

 

[JD2168]

Changing topic but does anyone know after almost 7 years how the Scania Enviro 400 City’s are performing on the Excel?

I remember at the time of their order and introduction a lot of talk regarding suitability etc. and First trialled a variety of types beforehand.

They must have clocked up a fair few miles now! Presumably they’re reliable as I haven’t seen comments here saying otherwise.

Just wondering what Firsts long term plan will be for ultimate replacement? Presumably electrics aren’t quite there yet? Although with the route broken down a lot more though and opportunity charging utilised it could be feasible.

The Scania’s appear to be good, B9TL’s do appear at times as these must be the back up option

 

[65477]

Recently the status of TMS aka Central Connect ex Konnect Bus, exHedingham & Chambers has appeared a number of times in this thread.

Things seems to be happening today..

H&C e-tickets are now being migrated to the Central Connect app, as described here

https://www.central-connect.co.uk/step-into-the-future

The Essex TravelEssex newsletter for July is one of the longest I have seen for some time,

https://travelessex-production-buck...dium=email&utm_campaign=Campaign+2026_06_30_2

As far as TMS (Flagfinders) are concerned the route 60 from Braintree to Sudbury ceases on the 25th July. The TravelEssex newsletter says "alternative journeys possible on Service 42" however some of the deletions will mean a lot longer wait for a connection at Sudbury to the extent that TRaveline suggests the faster route from Sudbury to Halstead will be taking three trains to Braintree and then bus Braintree to Halstead.

The 826 Hednigham - Colchester school service is the only one that appears under the Flagfinders name and this ceases at the end of the school year. It will be replaced by the "revised 88" but no details of this "Love my Bus" funded change will start.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Changing topic but does anyone know after almost 7 years how the Scania Enviro 400 City’s are performing on the Excel?

I remember at the time of their order and introduction a lot of talk regarding suitability etc. and First trialled a variety of types beforehand.

They must have clocked up a fair few miles now! Presumably they’re reliable as I haven’t seen comments here saying otherwise.

Just wondering what Firsts long term plan will be for ultimate replacement? Presumably electrics aren’t quite there yet? Although with the route broken down a lot more though and opportunity charging utilised it could be feasible.

Interesting you mention this. It was something that caught my eye when up in Norwich in Easter. They arrived just before Covid IIRC, and are now about the same age as the e400 when they were cascaded to Coastlink routes.

They are good robust machines on a long arduous route (though they have always squeaked like hell - thanks ADL) and you do wonder what will replace them. I've always assumed that it's the case that electrification was linked to the disposal of the Kings Lynn depot but that's me supposing.

 

[Camb]

Konectbus (Central Connect) 614 SN62AVZ caught fire whilst working service 8 on Wednesday evening.

Norwich Evening News: https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/26246257.photos-show-extent-bus-fire-a47-near-norwich/

New photos have shown the devastation of a fire that ripped through a bus and shut the A47.

 

[essexjohn]

I see from bustimes.org that Arriva (Southend-on-Sea) have a training bus traversing roads around Southchurch. Are Arriva planning to introduce new routes into this area?