New Sydney and Outer Metro bus contracts (as from 2020)

[Linto63]

There is a difference between speculation and analysing the facts and drawing a reasonable conclusion. For example, when Yourbus collapsed in England resulting in the Dunn Group selling Telfords to Kinetic, where despite your protestations that there was no evidence of this happening, everything suggested it had, and was later proven to be correct.

Anybody can come up with a methodology on how a fleet numbering should be implemented, but just making it up without anything other than gut feel isn't really helpful.

[Noel]

2749 / 2751 (Scania K280 Bustechs) might become 3852 - 3853.

2749ST is now (3852)

[stajourneyman]

Mate, there is evidence of things happening, and evidence of things possibly happening. There is a difference.

It sounds like you've been sitting on that one for a while, waiting for an opportunity ...

Re the Busways renumbering, if you had read my post, I wasn't just making things up based on gut feel, rather I was basing it around the evidence at

hand.

Even then, I did say that the vehicles in question MAY become those new fleet numbers mentioned.

Aaaanyway ..., Fleetlists seems to have hit the nail on the head by saying that Busways have probably renumbered these duplicated vehicles, from

3841 onwards on that basis that the highest existing fleet number in the two ex STA depots is 3840, being an M Scania L113 lowfloor, aside from the

handful of 4800 and 4900s.

Some more 'evidence' of that would be some sightings this week as follows :


2513 - now 3845
2514 - now 3846


2517 - now 3849
2518 - now 3850

2749 - now 3852

It also seems a bit strange that Busways didn't just renumber the 13 vehicles in the 4000 series at Y and M to free up 1000 fleet numbers.

[Linto63]

Mate, there is evidence of things happening, and evidence of things possibly happening.

Mate, nobody is doubting that Busways is renumbering some of its buses.

It sounds like you've been sitting on that one for a while, waiting for an opportunity.

Not really, must just have a good retentive memory.

Re the Busways renumbering, if you had read my post, I wasn't just making things up based on gut feel, rather I was basing it around the evidence at hand. Even then, I did say that the vehicles in question MAY become those new fleet numbers mentioned.

Exactly, you were speculating, far beeter to just wait for the facts to become clearer as they now are.

It also seems a bit strange that Busways didn't just renumber the 13 vehicles in the 4000 series at Y and M to free up 1000 fleet numbers.

The renumbering is seemingly being done to avoid duplications with buses in its Adelaide fleet. Whether they were renumbered in the 38xx or 4xxx range is really here nor there.

[Linto63]

3843 renumbered from 2213 is another positive sightings, retains is 2213.ST registration.

[Fleet Lists]

Whether they were renumbered in the 38xx or 4xxx range is really here nor there.

It is from our fleet list point of view which we want to keep up to date.

[Linto63]

It is from our fleet list point of view which we want to keep up to date.

Obviously, I think the question asked was why Busways elected to use the 38xx rather than 4xxx range.

[stajourneyman]

That was a coincidental statement that could have been taken two ways ....

How it was meant was that Busways Ryde and Willoughby depots currently have 13 buses in the 4000 range being Volvo B12s ..4800 - 4806 / 4926 / 4992 - 4996.

I was simply suggesting that if Busways had renumbered these into the 3800 range, they would have freed up the entire 4000 range for future fleet additions.

How it was inadvertently taken was that the 13 duplicate numbered vehicles could be renumbered into the 4000 series.

[Fleet Lists]

"Yourbus" was used as an example but further mention of yourbus was totally off subject and has been removed.

[Linto63]

Response to the sale of Telfords on more appropriate thread.

How it was inadvertently taken was that the 13 duplicate numbered vehicles could be renumbered into the 4000 series.

My bad, I misinterpreted what was being suggested.

[gilberations]

I complained about it here before, but it’s now resolved!

Busways’ website has finally made region 6 a part of the family. It is on the disruptions page,
And they’ve “buswaysified” their network map to only show their services.

https://www.busways.com.au/sites/defaul ... 090122.pdf

[tonyp]

I complained about it here before, but it’s now resolved!

Busways’ website has finally made region 6 a part of the family. It is on the disruptions page,
And they’ve “buswaysified” their network map to only show their services.

https://www.busways.com.au/sites/defaul ... 090122.pdf

It's up to TfNSW to produce regional maps showing all routes of all operators.

[gilberations]

I complained about it here before, but it’s now resolved!

Busways’ website has finally made region 6 a part of the family. It is on the disruptions page,
And they’ve “buswaysified” their network map to only show their services.

https://www.busways.com.au/sites/defaul ... 090122.pdf

It's up to TfNSW to produce regional maps showing all routes of all operators.

Incorrect. It’s done by the operators who, almost all of them I believe, contract it out to Transit Graphics in Canberra. This is why you will see them done in different formats, but look the same. Printed timetables are produced by TfNSW, but all other customer information is done by the operator.

[tonyp]

TfNSW is supposed to be responsible for the big picture, not Busways which is responsible only for its own operations. Why should Busways provide information on other operators' services?

[Fleet Lists]

No printed timetables are produced by Transport for NSW for instance Busways has produced their own printed timetables. For instance the printed area timetables shown at https://www.busways.com.au/nsw/plan-you ... timetables are their own timetables and NOT TfNSW.

TfNSW produces single route pdf timetables which many operators including Busways link to online. I have no idea as to which operators now actually produce PRINTED route timetables. I am sure that TfNSW does not produce them.

But Tonyp is correct that it should be up to TfNSW to produce such region maps which cover all routes that transverse a region,but he did not say that they actually do.

[In Transit]

TfNSW is supposed to be responsible for the big picture, not Busways which is responsible only for its own operations. Why should Busways provide information on other operators' services?

Why should Busways be providing incomplete information at all? You won't see any of Perth operators supplying their own maps (or timetables) at all. The PTA won't allow it. They recognise the need for consistent, operator agnostic information for passengers (and potential passengers) that reflects Transperth as they want the passenger to see it - a single network. They also recognise that they, the PTA, are best placed to provide that information. Then again, the PTA has a somewhat different view philosophically - whilst they outsource operations, they firmly regard the network as their own, the passengers as their own and the operators as their suppliers to deliver services to meet the PTA's exact specifications.

TfNSW is devoid of such vision, but is all too often happy to defer to operators instead of taking responsibility across a range of front line matters, which points to other issues within the organisation.

Ultimately operators publicly providing maps which are incomplete and show the network as a whole inaccurately, are not helping. They could, however, choose to spend a few extra dollars to create (and maintain) maps showing all operators, but in avoiding that expense (and taking the opportunity to promote their brand at the same time) they are only following the directions (and lack of direction) from TfNSW, which is only too happy to ignore the legitimate needs of its customers and avoid imposing uniform and effective standards on its customer information. Obviously the best outcome would be for TfNSW to provide comprehensive, uniform maps covering the entire network which are based on passenger's needs in terms of geography rather than contract area convenience. It's indefensible that this hasn't happened yet.

You could rehash exactly the same argument when reviewing the absolute dogs breakfast that is information on school specials in Sydney and so on...

[Swift]

Yes we know, Western Australia is more advanced than NSW. It's to do with culture. They have a vastly more positive one.

[In Transit]

Yes we know, Western Australia is more advanced than NSW. It's to do with culture. They have a vastly more positive one.

I wouldn't translate this into WA vs NSW terms. What sets the PTA in Perth apart is the way its history has shaped its people, its culture and its strategy. I'd never suggest the PTA is perfect - there is plenty to critique, but nonetheless in Australia they stand ahead of the pack in terms of their peers. That says as much about the competition as it does about the PTA.

I'd argue TfNSW has brought public transport a long way forward in Sydney, however there are problems with it that prevent it from reaching its full potential, and it has an unerring ability to match progress with backwards steps.

I'm not a fan of integrating public transport into huge all encompassing transport departments. On paper the story can be told in wonderful ways by the big consultancies who develop these structures and the professional executive class who speak the right buzz words, but the reality is public transport expertise and focus becomes diluted across the many silos that such a huge organisation inevitably develops.

Interestingly when WA originally separated the then government operator from the strategic control of the network (in no small part to enable contracting of operations) they originally placed the strategic control into a new Transperth division of the Department of Transport. After a few years, they changed course and responsibility for public transport was separated into its own agency, the PTA. Food for thought.

[Swift]

Say it with me, it's not hard, Perth is B-E-T-T-E-R then Sydney at doing things. As in it beats us convincingly.
Better attitudes, less arrogance, less smugness more can do thinking.
Word of the day on Sesame Street :better.
Next episode: backwater.

[tonyp]

Why should Busways be providing incomplete information at all?

Because it's intuitively acting like a traditional Sydney bus operator (which it is!) and demonstrating a good ol' bit of corporate pride in its own operation without seeing itself as part of a bigger machine. For the reasons you describe, which I fully agree with.

One thing I like about PTA is that when you provide feedback or have a question about a service issue, you are put through to the direct phone number and email of the relevant supervisory staff member dealing with the subject. It reminds me of the way they do things in Czech Republic and the way they did things in NSW generations ago. It's such a refreshing contrast to the wall of blah and fob-off you get from TfNSW. PTA is customer focussed, TfNSW is not. That makes a huge difference between the two states.

Part of WA's lead is of course down to the fact that they are dealing with a much smaller task than Sydney and one also needs to bear in mind that, while, for all the foibles of its administration, NSW public transport patronage (covid period aside) has been absolutely booming during the past decade, Perth's has been sliding downwards disturbingly to the extent that, from challenging Brisbane a few years back, it's now heading down in the direction of Adelaide levels. Doing things right doesn't always mean good results - especially when you have idiotic state governments of both political sides extending motorways out along railway lines and there's no market pressure to whittle down car parks by replacing them with a better economic use of land.

I too was saying that WA is the best - until Sydney Metro opened and brought us a rail service that was a more modern (thus slightly superior) version of Perth's. However, when you broaden that comparison to encompass supporting feeder buses, Perth still has a solid lead.

[gilberations]

The operators should be providing maps of their services, which busways have done, finally. It does help the public know which operator provides which service.

TfNSW should create a full network map, which is has partly done, which is what was replaced on the busways website this week. The thing to consider though, you go to the busways website to see busways services and you’re given a map that has services operated by Busways, TSA, STA, Hillsbus, Forest, Keolis Downer, Punchbowl… almost every other operator.

TL;DR Operator websites should display their own networks, TfNSW should have one map that shows the whole state!

[Swift]

Just look at Perth's sophisticated looking and consistent metallic silver and green branding. Meanwhile in amateurville we struggle to apply the basic white and blue on much of the contract fleet with a mish mash of legacy liveries mixing it with the chevrons in each contractor's fleet. Other cities with this overseen contractor model like Adelaide and London have managed to achieve a consistent livery across the system so that the passenger need not notice what company runs in different parts of the city.
NSW is behind -that's if it even wants to make it there.
A new brand thought up under a new administration -it's looking that way, will be rolled out before the current one ever completes it's own. They've had over a decade now.

[gilberations]

Just look at Perth's sophisticated looking and consistent metallic silver and green branding. Meanwhile in amateurville we struggle to apply the basic white and blue on much of the contract fleet with a mish mash of legacy liveries mixing it with the chevrons in each contractor's fleet. Other cities with this overseen contractor model like Adelaide and London have managed to achieve a consistent livery across the system so that the passenger need not notice what company runs in different parts of the city.
NSW is behind -that's if it even wants to make it there.
A new brand thought up under a new administration -it's looking that way, will be rolled out before the current one ever completes it's own. They've had over a decade now.

Only government owned buses get the TfNSW livery. The operated owned buses do not. That’s why there’s a mix. The old fleet that has the TfNSW livery was a paid for refit by the government.

Also, London has had the same livery for 70 odd years. Red.

[1whoknows]

On the livery issue, I find it interesting that Interline seems to have more buses still in the old Busabout livery than Busabout does!

[tonyp]

The operators should be providing maps of their services, which busways have done, finally. It does help the public know which operator provides which service.

TfNSW should create a full network map, which is has partly done, which is what was replaced on the busways website this week. The thing to consider though, you go to the busways website to see busways services and you’re given a map that has services operated by Busways, TSA, STA, Hillsbus, Forest, Keolis Downer, Punchbowl… almost every other operator.

TL;DR Operator websites should display their own networks, TfNSW should have one map that shows the whole state!

I think you should read In Transit's posts above again. The travelling public views the city's public transport as a single network. They don't need to know who a single operator is or their area of operation. It's supposed to be part of one big integrated system, reflected for one thing in the common livery. The public "visibility" of individual operators in Perth is virtually nil - they all present as Transperth. PTA WA provides the regional maps that show all routes through the region with no identification of individual operators whose job is simply to run and maintain those universal silver and green buses. This is the way it should be in Sydney (and I speak as a nostalgic fan of Sydney's old private bus liveries, but now we have Tony Finneran's books to keep that memory alive).