(27 Mar 2014, 10:06 pm)Kuyoyo wrote The jest of this survey is simply to get the passenger's view of the recent changes and what could be improved upon on the service they use. These changes then come into effect from the 20th July.

(27 Mar 2014, 10:09 pm)aureolin wrote I do agree from a targeting point of view, but going back to solely paper based consultation is a massive backwards step. I'd rather see investment in a digital solution to this. They have a huge wealth of data in front of them to target the right audience, and then personally invite them to an online consultation.

Pull a report from the Key database for example. Select passengers who live in the area, or use the affected services x many times a week. Email them a link and pass code. That data should form the basis to your results, and any additional paper forms should simply complement. Assume similar data can be pulled for ENCTS and POP smart cards ?

(27 Mar 2014, 10:11 pm)Dan wrote Are they given an option of what could be improved? Possible route diagrams to show that the company have thought about ways in which changes could be made to benefit the customer - by creating new links, upgrading frequency, etc?

I'm shocked if Arriva are leaving all of the work to customers. I do think customers should have a say, but I don't think that they should have the ability to completely decide on improvements (I'd imagine it would lead to a lot of completely irrational suggestions with such a large range that it would have been pretty pointless to carry out the survey in the first place). Giving them the opportunity to select from a number of options which the company has thought of, often based on e-mails sent in to the Commercial Team often via Customer Services (as is the case with GNE), seems a lot better to me.

Untitled1.png (Size 150.01 KB | Downloads 32)

Untitled3.png (Size 146.15 KB | Downloads 20)

Untitled2.png (Size 137.55 KB | Downloads 25)

(27 Mar 2014, 10:20 pm)Kuyoyo wrote Just to show exactly what the survey is:

(27 Mar 2014, 10:32 pm)Dan wrote The timetable links in with punctuality which in turn links in with reliability. Reliability can be recorded internally by regularly assessing lost mileage. Why do Arriva need to ask passengers about this?

I can understand why Vehicle Type/Condition has been included, but again, it goes without saying that most customers will know their service has been upgraded without the need to consult. Again, newer buses should mean that the service is more reliable.

For me, Length of Journey Time/Destination Options is the only really useful thing. I'm assuming that the survey doesn't allow for this to happen as it seems far too idealistic, but if I ticked the negative box for one of those two things - it would be good if there was a follow up question with something along the lines of:
"We have thought of a number of things to improve [destination options]. Please refer to the maps below. Do you think re-routing service 27 via Route A, B or C would be a good idea?"
Of course you'd include a 'None' box too, but you get my drift... Shows the company have put thought into it and are willing to adapt the route if a large number of respondants are in favour of changes to the route.

(27 Mar 2014, 10:40 pm)Kuyoyo wrote Why bother? They are asking what the customers think about the changes, not giving them a choice over future plans. Likely any planned changes are actually in the planning stages right now and they are consulting people to see what exactly could be done rather than 'right, here's what we want to do, what do you think?'. I honestly prefer the way Arriva are handing it, they are giving the customers a significant part in designing the routes and timetables rather than only getting a say in something that's already been planned.

(27 Mar 2014, 11:01 pm)tyresmoke wrote I think the main point being missed here is that this is not a consultation on massive changes, its simply a quick exercise to find out what our customers think about the recently implemented major network change in the T&EC areas. They were asked to help form the ideas for the network change and many of the ideas were implemented, and passenger numbers are actually growing (despite less resources being used, but used more intensively). Now it has had a month to settle in they are looking for any improvements that can be made with the tweaks coming in July, in case there is anything that has been missed or any other suggested improvements, very much like the X3 that was extended to start at North Slelton as a result of requests, just a week after the changes were implemented in February.

(28 Mar 2014, 7:50 am)Tom wrote If it was GNE doing these, everybody would love the idea
Overall, I think some more detail could be added to the surveys though, with additional questions with what you choose.

(28 Mar 2014, 8:25 am)Dan wrote I'm the only one who seemingly has a negative opinion of the Arriva survey, so I disagree with what you've said in the first half of the post.

I understand the points Kuyoyo and tyresmoke have made, but the majority of the questions are factors which can be monitored by the company more accurately than if they ask their customers (if I have one bad experience, I can't strongly agree that reliability has improved - but the company can see exactly how many journeys have operated late, have been curtailed and ran light, etc..)

As for the other factors in the survey, I agree that there is a point in asking them to seek further improvements with the route. All in all, however, this method is completely different to what Go North East use, and Arriva's method holds a completely different purpose to Go North East's Customer Consultations - I am struggling to comprehend why the two methods are being compared.

Personally, I think there are huge flaws in Arriva's method, just how members of this forum think there are flaws in Go North East's method. My main issue with Arriva's method is how much of a waste of resources it is for what it actually achieves. People are having a go at Go North East but their consultations achieve what Arriva's does and more - as a customer I have an insight into future plans for my service. I can't say I know what any 'tweaks' will be with Arriva.

(28 Mar 2014, 9:06 am)Kuyoyo wrote Arriva's is letting customers travel arrangements dictate what the network is, Go North East have the network designed and want the customer to decided what they would prefer. This survey of Arriva's is getting the customer's point of view.

As for 'the company can get the dead mileage/lost mileage figures themselves', using the 17 for example, it could be 10 minutes late leaving Yarm for the terminus at Kingsmead but on time when it leaves there. The timings for most routes are quite slack (X17s for example, the long trips get 51 minutes to do the run compared to he 44 minutes the X6 got pre-changes). The only service I'm aware of drivers have complains about timings at present is the 28 due to it's re-routing back to operating down Marton Road rather than via Easterside and Marton Manor. Previously the short journeys got 8 minutes layover in Nunthorpe, now they get 2 minutes on paper but whether they do get that is not known to me at present.

It's perhaps ironic here that, apart from myself and tyre smoke, the other two people who have voiced their opinions for the method Arriva are using, are both keen on Nexus' QCS and the persons who aren't would prefer the partnership method - yet this Arriva T&EC consultation/survey are perfect examples of partnership in action (a partnership of passengers and company designing a network together, passengers' giving their travel arrangement and preferred designation and the company then acting on that).

(28 Mar 2014, 9:09 am)Dan wrote Lateness isn't just recorded at each terminus - it is recorded every time the driver touches the EPM as far as I know. The company should still therefore be aware of any timekeeping issues on route.

(27 Mar 2014, 10:01 pm)Dan wrote I'm positive one of our forum members we associate with Go North East mentioned it as a possibility at the time - though it may have been amongst other reasons too, I'm not sure.

It goes without saying that the online presence would have allowed for a greater number of consultation responses, but the responses were not necessarily coming from the people that they should have been. Someone living in Fencehouses had the option to fill out the survey when it was online, and they might have only used the affected services once or twice per month yet had the same voice as someone who used the services multiple times per day. While 'spoof' seems a little exaggerated in this example, I don't think it's right that they had the ability to influence network changes. How likely is it that someone who lives in Fencehouses will travel to Park Lane, the City's main Library, or use a bus to Monkwearmouth for the sake of picking up a consultation leaflet? Far less, I'm sure.

I'm not being bias in any way whatsoever, but I really do think the new method is a lot better. Realistically, there is no way someone should be missed out. If I'm completely honest, the people who are less likely to notice the leaflets are the elderly. They should still have a say (and will if they receive one through their letter box), but I feel they're less likely to spot the leaflets on board buses. I don't know if this was the intention or not, but I can understand why it would be. The major thing which bugs me is that the results aren't available in the old .pdf document which was previously circulated, but this is mainly from an enthusiasts' point of view.

(28 Mar 2014, 1:02 pm)Greg in Weardale wrote A genuine survey will be widely available to passengers - on buses, in travelshops, on-line and even sent house to house - and will seek views on current services and how they could be improved, both regarding structure and operation, how and why people use buses and what changes would encourage greater use. Arriva seems genuinely interested in how people have reacted to their latest Teesside changes. Then you have GNE surveys, not widely available and with biased questions designed only to gain approval for changes already decided. The recent North Sunderland survey proved this, everything it suggested was implemented. The only difference was that the X3 wasn't mentioned at all as it was obviously intended to be cancelled, and was only reprieved - with Britain's most pathetic and badly designed bus timetable intended to ensure the final demise if this previously quite well used route - because people like me wrote on the reply that we wanted it to continue.

(28 Mar 2014, 1:53 pm)Dan wrote Christ, it all boils down to the X3 again...

(28 Mar 2014, 3:33 pm)robisdave wrote It's fact that Stagecoach do not appear to do much in the way of wholesale service changes, from my experience, sadly limited unfortunately, they do seem to attempt to maintain what is the essence of a service, namely continuity and reliability, as such taking action where individual and specific issues arise. The last one such that I read about was regarding the works at Newport and how these would affect services operating across that corridor? That idea seems to make sense rather than continually swoping and changing things; if there is a clear and identifiable problem on a particular service/route such as late running or overloading then deal accirdingly. It seems sensible as the relative information can, as far as I'm aware, be sourced directly from both the drivers and ticket machines.

(28 Mar 2014, 1:05 pm)robisdave wrote Just seen an interesting post on Service Suggestions by Tyresmoke with regard to the forthcoming introduction of Sapphire on routes 5/5a Middlesbrough-Guisborough-Brotton-Easington. He commented that this was likely to be the most complex Sapphire introduction so far. As a regular 5/5a user I'm naturally pleased we are going over to Sapphire and interested to hear from a driver's point of view how it will operate and what the issues are? Obviously it's a dedicated rota with dedicated drivers, also gone will be the infamous yellow waistcoat (it's all about image). What about the services themselves though? Clearly it's a revenue success as it wouldn't be going Sapphire; seemingly it's at maximum capacity and could only be extended, in terms of additional journeys by the use of more single deck resources. That then brings the question as to why we cannot have a re-introduction of the X5 express journeys, if only between M'bro and say Loftus? I could never understand why we llost them, but then towards their demise they were merely operating as 5 trips. Just a few thoughts guys.

(28 Mar 2014, 4:51 pm)Tom wrote Rather than Streetlites, wouldn't Citaros be more suited to the 5/5a, X3/X3a and X4/4. The Streelite are lightweight buses and not sure if they'd be good on the routes.

(28 Mar 2014, 4:55 pm)tyresmoke wrote They appear to be the new standard Arriva UK single deck as other divisions are also getting Streetlites. I am told the ones for our Sapphire routes will have uprated engines in them though. I'm not too sure on the exact details though, maybe someone else knows what specifications are offered?

(28 Mar 2014, 4:59 pm)robisdave wrote Tactical games between drivers!! As if a group of professionals would!! I jest a bit there so being serious take a peek at what I say about Sapphire on the 5/5a above and let me know any thoughts you have please. As a regular user of these routes it's useful to know. Also, had a ride on B7TL 7494 this morning? Only from G'boro into town mind but seemed pretty lively and s distinct improvement on the E400's. Not as much seating capacity though?

(28 Mar 2014, 5:06 pm)tyresmoke wrote See my 2nd reply.

Good to hear 7494 is decent, I've heard good things about that one too today. 7485 failed on the X93 earlier, so briefly both of them were out! lol
I think they're 67 seaters, so definitely less seats...

(28 Mar 2014, 9:06 am)Kuyoyo wrote Arriva's is letting customers travel arrangements dictate what the network is, Go North East have the network designed and want the customer to decided what they would prefer. This survey of Arriva's is getting the customer's point of view.

As for 'the company can get the dead mileage/lost mileage figures themselves', using the 17 for example, it could be 10 minutes late leaving Yarm for the terminus at Kingsmead but on time when it leaves there. The timings for most routes are quite slack (X17s for example, the long trips get 51 minutes to do the run compared to he 44 minutes the X6 got pre-changes). The only service I'm aware of drivers have complains about timings at present is the 28 due to it's re-routing back to operating down Marton Road rather than via Easterside and Marton Manor. Previously the short journeys got 8 minutes layover in Nunthorpe, now they get 2 minutes on paper but whether they do get that is not known to me at present.

It's perhaps ironic here that, apart from myself and tyre smoke, the other two people who have voiced their opinions for the method Arriva are using, are both keen on Nexus' QCS and the persons who aren't would prefer the partnership method - yet this Arriva T&EC consultation/survey are perfect examples of partnership in action (a partnership of passengers and company designing a network together, passengers' giving their travel arrangement and preferred designation and the company then acting on that).