First Greater Glasgow

[RomeoCharlie71]

I'm glad someone has mentioned the need to state destination with pass holders. On my bus in the morning, the schoolkids have to do it too and given that the under 22 passes don't scan particularly quickly you can imagine how much time it eats away.

This is not unique to First, or any Scottish operator: it's the nature of the Scottish Government's concessionary reimbursement scheme. The operators are reimbursed with the relevant %age of the equivalent adult single fare, so the correct destination must be stated to ensure the company receives the correct reimbursement. It's the same reason why operators print tickets for concessions, to ensure they have been issued the correct fare stage for reimbursement purposes (and drivers aren't deliberately over-staging passengers for the company's benefit).

England's model relies on the "average single fare", I believe, and operators are reimbursed so that they do not make a profit or loss. Hence, the destination does not need to be stated.

We do definitely need a shake up like that plus I believe that a Simplicity style set of changes will get less backlash than just hammering cuts constantly. There is a driver shortage and things need to be changed if you don't want to lose even more passengers. First need to remember that most passengers will blame them and only them for the driver shortages so need to learn to adjust more quickly to it than they have.

I'm not sure why you're obsessed with a "Simplicity style set of changes". Turning the network upside down will mean passengers have to get used to new routes, new destinations, new timetables which could backfire badly on the operator, with passengers moving away from the buses due to instability, or losing their direct route to work, etc. That sounded clearer in my head!

A full network rehash might be interesting from an enthusiast's point of view, but they are not passenger-friendly, not least in the midst of the industry's recovery from Covid. Entire network changes need to be intricately thought out, consulted on, marketed well and executed seamlessly. The chances of that happening at the moment? Next to nil. Sorry.

 

[PaulMc7]

This is not unique to First, or any Scottish operator: it's the nature of the Scottish Government's concessionary reimbursement scheme. The operators are reimbursed with the relevant %age of the equivalent adult single fare, so the correct destination must be stated to ensure the company receives the correct reimbursement. It's the same reason why operators print tickets for concessions, to ensure they have been issued the correct fare stage for reimbursement purposes (and drivers aren't deliberately over-staging passengers for the company's benefit).

England's model relies on the "average single fare", I believe, and operators are reimbursed so that they do not make a profit or loss. Hence, the destination does not need to be stated.

I'm not sure why you're obsessed with a "Simplicity style set of changes". Turning the network upside down will mean passengers have to get used to new routes, new destinations, new timetables which could backfire badly on the operator, with passengers moving away from the buses due to instability, or losing their direct route to work, etc. That sounded clearer in my head!

I'm not remotely obsessed by it but you could literally have the opposite happen where people could gain a direct bus to work with major changes. People want their bus to be running and in the current climate mass cuts are needed to make that possible.

Changing no routes but just axing constantly never goes down well. Time to try something different.

Given that they serve the public too, take the time to ask the public what journeys they make and build around that.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I'm not remotely obsessed by it but you could literally have the opposite happen where people could gain a direct bus to work with major changes. People want their bus to be running and in the current climate mass cuts are needed to make that possible.

Changing no routes but just axing constantly never goes down well. Time to try something different.

Given that they serve the public too, take the time to ask the public what journeys they make and build around that.

Look at Go North East (I'd suggest reading the dedicated thread on this forum). Their Covid-recovery consisted of rebranding almost every route to something new inspired by the infamous Ray Stenning, increasing frequencies on loads of routes and creating new connections to try and entice passengers back to bus. What sounded like a good idea at the time, they're now stuck in a vicious circle of cutting frequencies, withdrawing all the routes, and having senseless branding now. All of which is being compounded by increased traffic congestion, and the never-ending issue of driver shortages. To top things off, the MD who brought on this "recovery" has just departed for pastures new.

The whole "mass cuts needed", "try something new", "lets repeat Simplicity" line on this thread is getting quite boring now. Operators will be focusing on what works today, not conforming themselves to something that was successful (or not!) 10 years ago.

 

[stevenedin]

Look at Go North East (I'd suggest reading the dedicated thread on this forum). Their covid-recovery consisted of rebranding almost every route to something new inspired by the infamous Ray Stenning, increasing frequencies on loads of routes and creating new connections to try and entice passengers back to bus. What sounded like a good idea at the time, they're now stuck in a vicious circle of cutting frequencies, withdrawing all the routes, and having senseless branding now. All of which is being compounded by increased traffic congestion, and the never-ending issue of driver shortages. To top things off, the MD who brought on this "recovery" has just departed for pastures new.

The whole "mass cuts needed", "try something new", "lets repeat Simplicity" line on this thread is getting quite boring now. Operators will be focusing on what works today, not conforming themselves to something that was successful (or not!) 10 years ago.


The city services have a flat fare, hence no need for a ticket.

I'm not sure how it works with East Coast Buses or Lothian Country though, there are varying fare zones/stages there and as you rightly point out, tickets aren't issued to passholders.

Fairly off-topic now though!

It’s not just the city services that don’t issue a ticket.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

It’s not just the city services that don’t issue a ticket.

Indeed, as I acknowledged on the line underneath!

 

[PaulMc7]

Look at Go North East (I'd suggest reading the dedicated thread on this forum). Their covid-recovery consisted of rebranding almost every route to something new inspired by the infamous Ray Stenning, increasing frequencies on loads of routes and creating new connections to try and entice passengers back to bus. What sounded like a good idea at the time, they're now stuck in a vicious circle of cutting frequencies, withdrawing all the routes, and having senseless branding now. All of which is being compounded by increased traffic congestion, and the never-ending issue of driver shortages. To top things off, the MD who brought on this "recovery" has just departed for pastures new.

The whole "mass cuts needed", "try something new", "lets repeat Simplicity" line on this thread is getting quite boring now. Operators will be focusing on what works today, not conforming themselves to something that was successful (or not!) 10 years ago.


The city services have a flat fare, hence no need for a ticket.

I'm not sure how it works with East Coast Buses or Lothian Country though, there are varying fare zones/stages there and as you rightly point out, tickets aren't issued to passholders.

Fairly off-topic now though!

There's a driver shortage now that there hasn't ever been here which needs to be factored in. There were bad points with Simplicity too especially the explanation of the new routes and over-reliance on letter variants but "death by 1000 cuts" has only saw the opinion of First by a lot of people nosedive so it's clear something different needs tried.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

There's a driver shortage now that there hasn't ever been here which needs to be factored in. There were bad points with Simplicity too especially the explanation of the new routes and over-reliance on letter variants but "death by 1000 cuts" has only saw the opinion of First by a lot of people nosedive so it's clear something different needs tried.

Yes, but "trying" a full network overhaul (quite the oxymoron, really) which may turn out to be a disaster, in the midst of the covid-recovery would be detrimental for the business.

I'm not saying that the likes of revising routes/timetables slightly and advertising a combined frequency on key corridors shouldn't be done, in fact I'd say the opposite. Removing route variations and replacing them with simpler, combined routes with enhanced frequencies has worked in Dundee, for example. Granted, passengers don't have a bus on their doorstep anymore. Instead, at the expense of a slightly further walk to the bus stop, they have a bus at double the frequency.

Ensuring consistency and simplicity without increasing resources, but still covering the same ground is exactly what I'd advocate at the moment.

 

[PaulMc7]

Yes, but "trying" a full network overhaul (quite the oxymoron, really) which may turn out to be a disaster, in the midst of the covid-recovery would be detrimental for the business.

I'm not saying that the likes of revising routes/timetables slightly and advertising a combined frequency on key corridors shouldn't be done, in fact I'd say the opposite. Removing route variations and replacing them with simpler, combined routes with enhanced frequencies has worked in Dundee, for example. Ensuring consistency and simplicity without increasing resources, but still covering the same ground is exactly what I'd advocate at the moment.

For me, to cover the same ground with how many drivers First are short requires an overhaul. I don't think there's much else that can really be done to make buses more reliable without that.

The only options are cuts or new routes and one of the two given that leisure travel is the main issue sounds far more appealing than the other and I say that as someone who can get a direct bus to work with the current set up.

 

[Scotrail88]

For me, to cover the same ground with how many drivers First are short requires an overhaul. I don't think there's much else that can really be done to make buses more reliable without that.

The only options are cuts or new routes and one of the two given that leisure travel is the main issue sounds far more appealing than the other and I say that as someone who can get a direct bus to work with the current set up.

How is new direct links going to work with a network balanced on driver availability?
Most likely end up with less direct services and more connections required.

Given stability proves best for passengers then reliability build up is key - recruitment will address that

 

[PaulMc7]

How is new direct links going to work with a network balanced on driver availability?
Most likely end up with less direct services and more connections required.

Given stability proves best for passengers then reliability build up is key - recruitment will address that

It can work very easily if done right. You'd end up with less high frequency services but different options from different places.

This network currently isn't stable and that's why I've said what I have. I'll use the 60 as an example. Every 30 mins yet there are times with 3-4 of them in a row missing and its not the only service like that. There is only so long people will give it and being realistic the recruitment of new drivers won't happen quick enough especially because it would also take not losing any too on top of that.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

It can work very easily if done right. You'd end up with less high frequency services but different options from different places.

Literally the opposite from what you'd want to do. Having a core 10 minute frequency along one corridor, is much better than having 3 different route variations through a similar area, each operating every 30 minutes. It creates a simple route, which is easy for passengers to remember, and has the benefit of dampening the impact of a missed trip: passengers have to wait at the same stop for an additional 10 minutes, rather than having to go somewhere else to get the next bus (or, in the case of a "dumb" passenger, wait for an additional 30 minutes).

This network currently isn't stable and that's why I've said what I have. I'll use the 60 as an example. Every 30 mins yet there are times with 3-4 of them in a row missing and its not the only service like that. There is only so long people will give it and being realistic the recruitment of new drivers won't happen quick enough especially because it would also take not losing any too on top of that.

And a full network overhaul will resolve this how?

 

[PaulMc7]

Literally the opposite from what you'd want to do. Having a core 10 minute frequency along one corridor, is much better than having 3 different route variations through a similar area, each operating every 30 minutes. It creates a simple route, which is easy for passengers to remember, and has the benefit of dampening the impact of a missed trip: passengers have to wait at the same stop for an additional 10 minutes, rather than having to go somewhere else to get the next bus (or, in the case of a "dumb" passenger, wait for an additional 30 minutes).


And a full network overhaul will resolve this how?

I'd almost agree but look at cancellations on particular corridors even with frequent combinations. Maryhill with the 60s and 61s are awful for runs of cancellations and the 7/7A/75 crossovers are bad for it too.

You can reduce the number of buses on the road with overhauls resulting in less cancellations which is what will keep passengers.

First have been incredibly slow to react with the driver shortages so far. With most of the changes this year, the immediate reaction was "it's not enough" and we've been right so far.

 

[Falcon1200]

This is not unique to First, or any Scottish operator: it's the nature of the Scottish Government's concessionary reimbursement scheme. The operators are reimbursed with the relevant %age of the equivalent adult single fare, so the correct destination must be stated to ensure the company receives the correct reimbursement.

Although in Edinburgh there is no need to state destination, nor is a ticket issued; Presumably an average reimbursement is paid for each concessionary pass used?

 

[Joerf21]

Wow, breaking news today, McGill's has bought First Scotland East. That's a very interesting purchase; could First Glasgowglasgow be next?

 

[Volvodart]

First Glasgow makes First Bus the most money. What do you think?

 

[JumpinTrainz]

I think First Glasgow is a big money maker for First and that’s shown by how much investment it gets. I think Aberdeen must be somewhat profitable too give the investment it’s seen and is still to say in the way of hydrogen/electric buses but I’m not 100% sure if that’s more council related. Glasgow I doubt will be going anywhere unless a company offered a great deal for it.

 

[sannox]

Very unlikely any other operator (operating in Scotland right now) could buy First Glasgow due to competition issues as well.

 

[ScotRail158725]

Wow, breaking news today, McGill's has bought First Scotland East. That's a very interesting purchase; could First Glasgowglasgow be next?

Aberdeen and Glasgow are profitable for First with Glasgow being one of if not the most profitable in the country so no..

 

[PaulMc7]

Even though it's their home territory, I'd think even Aberdeen would be sold before Glasgow if it ever was to happen. I don't see it ever changing here though unless the government gave the council enough money to take over from First but that's unlikely.

I've noticed a lot more cancellations testing from Caledonia services today and I hope for passengers sake some of them aren't accurate. There are 5 different 38s showing as cancelled at one point and a lot of other services with multiple in a row showing as cancelled.

 

[Stan Drews]

Although in Edinburgh there is no need to state destination, nor is a ticket issued; Presumably an average reimbursement is paid for each concessionary pass used?

There is a flat fare in Edinburgh, so the destination is irrelevant, as the reimbursement paid will always be the same amount per journey.

 

[Falcon1200]

There is a flat fare in Edinburgh, so the destination is irrelevant, as the reimbursement paid will always be the same amount per journey.

Thanks. Would the larger size of Glasgow mean that a similar system would not be acceptable there ?

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

This is not unique to First, or any Scottish operator: it's the nature of the Scottish Government's concessionary reimbursement scheme. The operators are reimbursed with the relevant %age of the equivalent adult single fare, so the correct destination must be stated to ensure the company receives the correct reimbursement. It's the same reason why operators print tickets for concessions, to ensure they have been issued the correct fare stage for reimbursement purposes (and drivers aren't deliberately over-staging passengers for the company's benefit).

England's model relies on the "average single fare", I believe, and operators are reimbursed so that they do not make a profit or loss. Hence, the destination does not need to be stated.

I'm not sure why you're obsessed with a "Simplicity style set of changes". Turning the network upside down will mean passengers have to get used to new routes, new destinations, new timetables which could backfire badly on the operator, with passengers moving away from the buses due to instability, or losing their direct route to work, etc. That sounded clearer in my head!

A full network rehash might be interesting from an enthusiast's point of view, but they are not passenger-friendly, not least in the midst of the industry's recovery from Covid. Entire network changes need to be intricately thought out, consulted on, marketed well and executed seamlessly. The chances of that happening at the moment? Next to nil. Sorry.

Lothian buses subsidiaries use fares staged zones yet don’t print tickets for such journeys despite possibly traveling over these stages..

 

[adrock1976]

Thanks. Would the larger size of Glasgow mean that a similar system would not be acceptable there ?

London manages a flat fare system perfectly well, therefore should work in the metropolitan areas outwith there.

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

London manages a flat fare system perfectly well, therefore should work in the metropolitan areas outwith there.

It would work in Glasgow but if First Glasgow done this, it either means removing the £2.65 single fare and leaving the remaining £1.80 lower single fare.

Or

Maybe Splitting the difference with a £2.20 single fare.

However, £2.20 is to expensive for a single fare if you ask me, £1.80 is ok but that would ultimately put First Glasgow out of revenue and well let’s face it that’s not happening.

 

[route101]

They tried a two tiered fare system back in 2011 but its become a bit more complicated now. I find it funny its £2.65 single from East Kilbride to Glasgow yet double I think from Hamilton. One thing that I have not seen in Glasgow is the £1 flat fare after 6pm, as seen in other First areas.

 

[PaulMc7]

They tried a two tiered fare system back in 2011 but its become a bit more complicated now. I find it funny its £2.65 single from East Kilbride to Glasgow yet double I think from Hamilton. One thing that I have not seen in Glasgow is the £1 flat fare after 6pm, as seen in other First areas.

The network fare system needs scrapped IMO. It would probably bring in more passengers as it would make the bus cheaper than the train in a lot of cases too.

 

[adrock1976]

They tried a two tiered fare system back in 2011 but its become a bit more complicated now. I find it funny its £2.65 single from East Kilbride to Glasgow yet double I think from Hamilton. One thing that I have not seen in Glasgow is the £1 flat fare after 6pm, as seen in other First areas.

Do the present day First Glasgow routes in East Kilbride hark back to the days of the former Glasgow Corporation/Strathclyde Buses with Hamilton formerly being KCB?

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

Do the present day First Glasgow routes in East Kilbride hark back to the days of the former Glasgow Corporation/Strathclyde Buses with Hamilton formerly being KCB?

Yes.

The KCB route 180 & 80 between Glasgow to Calderwood via Cathkin & Glasgow to Greenshill via Rutherglen is currently First Glasgows Route 6 & 18, respectively.

 

[route101]

Yes.

The KCB route 180 & 80 between Glasgow to Calderwood via Cathkin & Glasgow to Greenshill via Rutherglen is currently First Glasgows Route 6 & 18, respectively.

The 6 runs via Busby what was the old route number before the 66?

 

[Stan Drews]

The 6 runs via Busby what was the old route number before the 66?

66 was the Strathclyde Buses route that they extended from Sheddens to EastKilbride in competition with then Central Scottish routes via Busby to EK, which were the 137/8/9/140 group.