(20/04/2017 19:33)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]I find these figures a little difficult to believe. Bearing in mind the industry's biggest cost is (supposedly) labour ie. driver's wages, an extra bus running even 12 hours a day (thus solving peak AND daytime running time issues) would only cost 2 drivers at most. (When I was a scheduler at GMT/GM Buses, the average driver was behind the wheel for 6.5 hours a day). That's what £40k. Surely all the vehicle costs (including fuel, insurance, tax, depreciation) don't come to £80k a year. Besides, a lot of these problems don't need an extra all day bus in the mix, although the change in emphasis to an industry with such a shallow peak (bus wise) hasn't helped. Can't speak for the 130 of course, but in my part of GM, the biggest problem within Stagecoach's control is 0900-1030 SEVEN days a week. Solve that, and you don't get problems building up all day.
Unfortunately this is what ive been told by someone who as been there and seen how things get worked out dont forget they dont just have buses floating around like they use to.
All depots had there spare buses cut down so they dont have as many buses sat around so would have to source another veichle from somewhere then modify it into sapphire specification then fuel , road tax ,drivers wages ,maintenance etc in which prices have all gone up since GM days and don't even get as much BSOG back as they use to.
It would create another 2 full duties in which you would have to find work before or after there turn on the 130 as everything comes under a set budget which have been cut severly within the big companies.
(20/04/2017 10:02)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]We have the same issue with the 27 route. If you work in Knutsford the bus is useless unless you can work something like 8-4.30 or 9.30-6. If you work in Macclesfield and start at 8 or finish at 6 the bus is useless.
With Macclesfield having a lot of digital agencies they generally want to employ people who can stay late one night to finish a project with a short deadline and then finish early on another day. I've pointed this out to Cheshire East before but there response has been they feel the bus times (of Macclesfield services in general) meets the need of most people! Obviously the significant drop in patronage on the 27 service since the route went 2 hourly is nothing to do with it not running at the times people need to travel.
The 27 situation is a shame. Its got a an operator that appears to make an effort in cleanliness and timekeeping, but is let down by a rather intransigent council (with the not unusual 'we're right, your wrong' attitude) when it comes to the timetable. That service could be so much more, but is unfortunately let down by those who contract it.
(21/04/2017 07:51)dca529x Wrote: [ -> ]The 27 situation is a shame. Its got a an operator that appears to make an effort in cleanliness and timekeeping, but is let down by a rather intransigent council (with the not unusual 'we're right, your wrong' attitude) when it comes to the timetable. That service could be so much more, but is unfortunately let down by those who contract it.
The 88 was an hourly service, then it was a not very punctual half-hourly service under GHA then Arriva. Since last October it's been a relatively reliable half-hourly service and passenger usage seems to be steadily increasing.
The 27 and 130 have had their frequency cutback, while the 130 isn't very punctual and passenger usage on both routes has fallen.
Another thing I find with Cheshire East council is they had the opportunity to change join up or split routes last year but I bet they didn't even consider awarding a Sunday and BH contract for Macclesfield-Wilmslow-Manchester Airport, diverting the 289 service to Warrington instead of Altrincham (rather than just reducing the number of services to Altrincham) or joining up the 27 and 99 services. In the case of the latter they awarded a 27 contract which has a bus sat at Macclesfield bus station for around 30 minutes and a 99 contract originally running to an hourly timetable which was impossible to keep to only using 1 vehicle.
I've always thought it's the same with the 392 macc - stockport, high peak do a brilliant job of running a decent quality clean & friendly service. However sadly it's let down by all the traffic trying battle down the A6 from the rising sun into stockport can be blue murder some days.
Plus paying nearly 6 quid for a return has been moaned about by a few people as being a slight rip off. It was a lot better when arriva ran it, as a north west day saver covered you for the 392/393. As for the 130 I can't see it lasting much longer tbh, people are going to revert back to driving or using the train instead as arriva are providing such a crap unreliable service. Also noted & i'm not sure if it's just me but some of the macc drivers can be really grouchy, bordering on unpleasant.
Yes I know dealing with the public is a taxing job & they get their fair share of abuse, but a few drivers could do well to remember that at end of the day it's passengers paying their wages. Without people using their buses & arriva making profits they'd be out of a job. A couple of winsford's drivers have apparently been let go lately according to a driver mate of mine due to getting snappy with people.
As for 392/393 there's not much time given to do the full route as usually the bus usually loses time at Poynton and depending on the day loses more time going through Hazel Grove.
The problem with 392 is that it interworks with 1 and 58 in Macclesfield so I'm guessing sometimes if a 392 runs late into Macclesfield then 1 gets dropped in favour of doing 58 on time to get the bus back to Buxton.
Sorry for digressing.
Interesting working from Winsford yesterday saw their standard Solo (not a Solo SR) out on 29s yesterday.
That's pretty standard i'd imagine for a solo to cover, winsford have 708/709 & 679 if it's still knocking about somewhere?
(22/04/2017 05:43)M60lad Wrote: [ -> ]As for 392/393 there's not much time given to do the full route as usually the bus usually loses time at Poynton and depending on the day loses more time going through Hazel Grove.
The problem with 392 is that it interworks with 1 and 58 in Macclesfield so I'm guessing sometimes if a 392 runs late into Macclesfield then 1 gets dropped in favour of doing 58 on time to get the bus back to Buxton.
Sorry for digressing.
High Peak inter-work services too much (mainly due to where their depot is in relation to the start and end of various routes), while Arriva don't inter-work services when it might be beneficial to do so e.g. when the buses on one route have a 15 minute turnaround time and those on another have a 5 minute turnaround time.
It would be I reckon plus cheaper than shelling out nearly 6 quid for a return!
Thank you for the photo DCA. I preferred seeing it twice to not at all.