First are having an online meet the manager event next Monday. They'll have managers of their Southampton services on Facebook and Twitter live between 5pm and 7pm. Full details here.
Bluestar are having a January sale. A weekly ticket valid on Bluestar 16 is £9 until the end of January. It normally costs £13 for a Bluestar/Unilink Southampton weekly ticket.
Don't forget that there are timetable changes to Bluestar 5, E1 and E2 from this Sunday.
I like Bluestar 16.Its so much quicker getting from Portswood to Midanbury,via Cobden Ave,than going a long way round like First`s no.7!
ReplyDeleteThe managers question time next Monday should be quite interesting. Let's hope the questions asked are sensible ones, that they may to some extent be able to address some of the problems that genuine bus users have in useing their services.Their Facebook page is not a good example of genuine issues by genuine customers, although some are genuine concerned bus users. Unfortunately the site attracts some very unusual comment from people who are interested in other aspects,rather than the services or lack of services provided. As to the 16 being quicker from Portswood to Midanbury,which it is, if you go from Midanbury to Portswood it's quicker on Firstbus 7. An ideal situation that would benefit all users in the area, would be if tickets issued by either operator were interavailable. Of course no way will this happen, except if you are lucky enough to be a concessionary pass holder of some kind,and have the luxuary of this privilage on most routes operated within or outside of Southampton or elsewhere. I trust by Midanbury you mean the top of Witts Hill area, because if you refer to Midanbury as being the bottom of Witts Hill, then yes you are correct the 16 is quicker in either direction. PAC
ReplyDeleteYet another gimmick to try and boost a poorly performing route, and to steal more passengers from their rivals. Why don't Bluestar spend their money more wisely and invest in their current network and trying to improve that before haemorrhaging money with a route that has seen minimal growth in passenger numbers in the 16 or so months it's been operating. If people aren't using it by now, they never will.
ReplyDeleteFirst started this war, by moving in on Marchwood. They have long since given up there, of course! Now they have over stretched themselves again, by running their 2 route in competition with Bluestar 18. There is no doubt that they will fail there too, because they have too much frequency to generate profit. Bluestar on the other hand, have gently eroded Firsts stranglehold on Townhill, without going mad, and you may be interested to know that the 16 is now in profit,according to my sources. As for investment in their current network, Bluestar have increased frequency on some routes in the last 12 months,but avoided the wholesale changes that First seem to have to make to their failing network, with astonishing frequency. I find it astonishing that anyone would have a go at Bluestar, or even compare them with First. Bluestar appear to have a strong business plan. First seem to lurch from one mess to the next!
DeleteYou need to check your facts: bluestar registered Townhill park before First went to the Waterside.
DeleteBluestar may have a strong business plan but I think they are suffering a big loss of revenue on Millbrook. 16 is not in profit - the increase in frequency from 20min to 15min took 5 vehicles instead of the previous 3 - not a good business move on a poorly performing route. I think they know that Townhill Park was the wrong place to go but they now cant afford to run high frequency to Woolston where they needed to be.
DeleteYou are right about that, but before registering their new Marchwood route, First made the mistake of telling lots of people in high places about their plans, so Bluestar did register first, but only as a response to Firsts announced intent!
DeleteI'm sorry but if the 16 is making a profit then the drivers must be working for nothing and the buses running on fairydust. Everytime I've seen it (which is quite a lot since it started), it's carried no more than around a quarter of its capacity. The only time I saw it close to full was on Boxing Day, when general demand vastly outweighed supply. By no means am I a First supporter either; they clearly lost the Marchwood battle and weren't prepared to give the 11 the time to build, deciding it wasn't worth their while after just a few months. Very poor business management, which is being seen as their network decays further with their constant changes. Just because Bluestar are still running the 16 doesn't mean it's a success; it just means they are prepared to go as far as possible to try and make it so, and looking at the broader picture, their parent company Go Ahead has got far more money to chuck down the drain than First do, considering they're ceasing operations in certain parts of the country.
DeleteI don't buy that one. There was no announcement by First it was all rumour and gossip. If operators reacted on rumour and gossip there would registrations everywhere.
DeleteNo, not rumour or gossip, just a friendly little bird at the council!
DeleteWithout Bluestar 16 ,those living on or close to Cobden Ave would remain isolated again !Why First withdrew the popular 14 route along there ,just so they could send all their services via Midanbury remains a huge mistake! If only Bluestar would put a stop by Midanbury lane ,like it used to be ,it`d be even better!
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't know why this stop at Midanbury Lane/Cobden Avenue was not included when the 16 was introduced. Probabaly this was because no one that is present at Bluestar would have known the past history of this section of the old 14 route when council operated. It should be reinstated as it was quite an important stop on the old 14 route. I believe inward there use to be a bus shelter and outward on a pole or lamp standard. As to passenger numbers, I notice some journeys on Bluestar 16 are reasonably busy,some are not. The same observation has been noted for Firstbus 7. The 16 runs at reasonable intervals between buses, the 7 has the same problem as Bluestar 18 where it's more frequent,and buses bunch up together. PAC
DeleteWent into the Civic Centre Library today, to see since the last time I visited the Tourist Information, things had improved as to public transport information available. Well the Tourist Information is now closed permanentely, and public transport information has been reduced to one revolving stand. When you see what is on offer,you will note that public transport has now ceased in Southampton. So don't bother to make a visit anymore, as you will get very very little, or no help whatsoever. It's a disgrace to the City of Southampton, who's council is always promoting what a wonderful place it is to visit. PAC
ReplyDeleteDid I see a press report in the Southern Evening Echo,that If funds can be found there might be an off peak service between Totton and the General Hospital operated by Xelabus? PAC
ReplyDeleteWell the meet the manager(s) on line Firstbus facebook seems to be going well as I write this,with it seems already their planners, after only a week of changes to timetables in Southampton, at the drawing board about to have another go in correcting certain things,which were made to correct certain things from the last change. Interestingly they seem to wish to correct the bad frequency in spacing of buses evenings between Millbrook/Shirley and City which before the change was not to bad, and some sugestion that Thornhill to City via Thornhill Park Road might be on the cards after just withdrawing it. I might add these are comments from Firstbus managers, and not me complaining about Firstbus in what they have done at this recent change, as they have stated they were done to address financial loss and have a sustainable operation in Southampton. PAC
ReplyDeleteAnon 13 Jan 18.34.what are you on about?They said there were insufficient numbers of passengers for the Thornhill park rd service to pay!!!
ReplyDeleteYes slight error thre on my part,should have put via Bursledon Road not Thornhill Park Road. PAC
Delete