(10/03/2017 21:16)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]All of which emphasises the failure of the free market. The worst aspect of this is indeed the fact that they are punishing their long-standing, loyal customer base for their own misguided failings and obsession with internal competition. However, it is also lamentable that they then blame city area roadworks - which presumably means 2CC work - as if they had no idea that Metrolink expansion would involve any kind of disruption, when they decided to start a bus war with First. Also, it was always believed that Stagecoach's former success was built on local knowledge and independence - so now we hear that the millionaire fat cats 250 miles away are now dictating who is to suffer.
Not often I say this Dentonian but for once I completly agree
(10/03/2017 01:38)Mayneway Wrote: [ -> ]In a way stagecoach have got bus users by the neck so to speak. They have spent years soaking up the rivals and independants, to a point where in large pockets of Manchester they are the only operator only for them to reduce, and cut the services in that area, practically pushing punters away from the bus alltogeter.
Unfortunately, this is true not only with-in Greater Manchester. Just take a look at Lancashire upto 12-months ago, there were villages (Arkholme & Whittington) that had a regular bus service, but are now with-out a bus service. Same is also true with parts of Northamptonshire (Yarwell & Nassington).
(10/03/2017 21:16)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]All of which emphasises the failure of the free market. The worst aspect of this is indeed the fact that they are punishing their long-standing, loyal customer base for their own misguided failings and obsession with internal competition. However, it is also lamentable that they then blame city area roadworks - which presumably means 2CC work - as if they had no idea that Metrolink expansion would involve any kind of disruption, when they decided to start a bus war with First. Also, it was always believed that Stagecoach's former success was built on local knowledge and independence - so now we hear that the millionaire fat cats 250 miles away are now dictating who is to suffer.
Hasn't this always been the case with large corporate companies!?
(11/03/2017 15:38)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, that's the saddest part. Yes, the main criticism of First was always that decisions were made hundreds of miles away by people who didn't know the difference between Mossley and Moss Bank Way, but Stagecoach was different. if you take out individual incidents around Easter 2006 around EO stand at the height of the bus war with UKN, I found Stagecoach to be thoroughly professional as both a passenger and an industry "partner" from the late nineties right up to around 2013. However, since then standards have dropped markedly, with total refusal to address punctuality problems outside the city of Manchester boundary, and cutting services in low car ownership areas to fight to fund a bus war in Salford charging ridiculously cheap fares. The only consolation - so far! - is that road staff have not allowed their standards to drop like the rest of the company.
Going back to Easter 2006, In regards to maintaince and standards yes stagecoach was a lot better than thier notorious rival but they themselves used some underhand tactics to thwart the restrictions put in place at the time by MCC allowing only 1 bus of one service at any one time so you would get a stagecoach 192 with a stagecoach 211 out of service behind followed by a third stagecoach bus on a 347 not in service, as soon as the 192 at the front pulled away the bus behind suddenly changed into a 192 and so on and so on.
Both companies used inspectors or public relation operatives to try and entice would be punters onto thier buses instead of the rivals. At times they were rude and intimidating.
The point I'm making is Stagecoach were as much a part of the bus war as UKN. Some would say they were protecting what was there's others, including me would say they were just as much to blaim for the chaos at the time.
But yes I do agree that over the last 10 years or so standards have dropped.
The withdrawal of the 378 to Wilmslow will leave the Lacey Green estate without any buses at all. Until fairly recently it still had hourly evening and Sunday services.
The Colshaw farm estate, which was built as a Manchester overspill, fares little better with recent cuts to the 130. Someone who works in wilmslow will have no bus north between 1718 and 1905, that will hardly be attractive. Spath lane estate, another overspill estate will have no buses at all.
(11/03/2017 11:14)WhiteVanMan Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, this is true not only with-in Greater Manchester. Just take a look at Lancashire upto 12-months ago, there were villages (Arkholme & Whittington) that had a regular bus service, but are now with-out a bus service. Same is also true with parts of Northamptonshire (Yarwell & Nassington).
The recent withdrawal of most rural bus services is a result of one thing only: central government austerity measures. Since 2010, local authorities have faced huge reductions in central government grants and LA's have had to decide where to reduce the services they provide. As tendered bus services are not a statutory obligation that's where their focus has been.
I recall having a conversation with a gentleman on a similar site about two years ago who was absolutely certain that rural bus services within Lancashire were 100% safe. Within a year, Lancashire CC had no option but to withdraw all funding when £7 million was slashed from its budget.
We are now at the point where if a service cannot make a profit it will not run.
Sat 12th Mar 17 obs.....
Manchester:
10584 on route 216 to Ashton (Branded route 330)
FJ07AAZ : Wt of Ferryhill Motors on route 112
Sun 13th Mar 17 obs.....
Leyland (awaiting delivery)
SN17MKA,
SN17MKC,
SN17MKD.
AD E40D / E400MMC
(12/03/2017 15:00)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]My experiences of Easter 2006 were mainly as a straightforward commuter, so I mainly witnessed (and was caught up in) events between 1655 & 1735ish. I can't therefore comment more generally, other than to point out that the 211 had been replaced by 201 many years earlier, and of course, the 347 doesn't run anywhere near Manchester. I recall three distinct incidents:
1. Two UKN employees staging a (mock?) wrestle on the ground like a pair of drugged up yobs, in front of 100+ bemused commuters waiting for a bus - any bus - going up Hyde Road.
2. Being ushered with about 70 other passengers aboard the 1720, 204, whilst it parked right across the Newton Street/Piccadilly junction, by a Stagecoach inspector barking as though it was the 204 passengers' fault that UKN had decided to run 192s!!! The bus then left at 1716.
3. Running (again with dozens of others) all the way from EO stand to what is now EQ stand to board another 204 (the 1740?), because EO stand was totally blocked by 192s of both Operators.
I'm well aware that the 211 and 347 shouldn't run from the stand you mention, the point I was making was stagecoach drivers were clearly told at the time to throw up any number service apart from 192 to get onto stand quicker and obviously not get spotted by officials who were at the time out in force after the huge medîa interest in said bus wars.
I have several photos somewhere of a row of mainly n/c Scania's queing to get onto the stand displaying the rouge numbers.
Noticed that a few buses have had their dayrider and weekly megarider prices removed from the windows. I should imagine there could be a price rise coming up, possibly either at the same time as the April service changes or around Easter.
(13/03/2017 20:55)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]Are we talking about the same bus war?? My point about the 211 was that the service number ceased to exist about a decade before, not that it ran from a different stand! Also, as I recall, there were no officials from VOSA or anyone else around - certainly not at peak times. The two companies were left to do as they pleased.
Stagecoach drivers were told to throw up any number while waiting to go onto stand as a long que of buses all numbered 192 wouldn't look good. I've got photos of both examples somewhere and yes were talking 2005/2006.
The point I was trying to make was both companies were as bad as each other at the time.