Forum | Merseyside Dennis Dart Website

Your passengers must be lying to you, the 130 has served Liverpool - Dingle for as long as I can remember, I have been using the route through all the operators since CMT and buses were regularly on time at Mill Street at various times, morning (Sundays) or evenings. No doubt I'll be called a liar here but the truth is that while other companies had issues bedding into these routes, they got there in the end. Cumfybus were regularly running to time without speeding so I don't see the issue really.

Given this is a Fleet News only topic I am disappointed a Admin member has joined in with the topic going off course. Also it is wrong of both First Class to post what he posted and also msteens tone of reply is not exactly friendly.

If they are the reasons that the company wants to give that is the reasons they are giving, in the past Supertravel and CumfyBus have both struggled to keep to time on the 130 - it's just life. If they reckon the timetable needs looking at and that is one reason they are quitting surely it is good that they point that out to Merseytravel as then that may allow the next company to perform better anyways this topic is for fleet news only can we stick to that?

(25/11/2012 21:10)ste Wrote: [ -> ]Given this is a Fleet News only topic I am disappointed a Admin member has joined in with the topic going off course. Also it is wrong of both First Class to post what he posted and also msteens tone of reply is not exactly friendly.

If they are the reasons that the company wants to give that is the reasons they are giving, in the past Supertravel and CumfyBus have both struggled to keep to time on the 130 - it's just life. If they reckon the timetable needs looking at and that is one reason they are quitting surely it is good that they point that out to Merseytravel as then that may allow the next company to perform better anyways this topic is for fleet news only can we stick to that?

It isn't fleet news only any more.

Secondly, this forum is for discussing and speculate on things which happen - like a bus company walking away from a major contract with some dubious reasons that have never been mentioned by any other operator!

The forum isn't just for reporting sightings and fleet news last time I checked. It is supposed to promote discussion of a wide range of topics and allow people to share responsible opinions and views and to respectfully debate any issues which arise.

I find it odd that Impera would just walk away. Surely if they could evidence these problems, Merseytravel would have been happy to allow a timetable alteration to improve reliability? A poor timetable is a strange reason to walk away.

Did Merseytravel refuse a timetable improvement? If not, has Impera simply walked away because of broken windows - which could also be resolved with some bandit bus operations?

Add into Impera's recent expansion on the Wirral, and withdrawing their daytime 30 into Liverpool, perhaps a coincidence?

I'm sure we won't see some new/improved evening and Sunday service on the Wirral now, will we? That's not a problem, of course!

Keep an eye out

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/13...tender/new

it is not just the timetable, when you get copies of the correspondance from between ourselves and merseytravel maybe that be help you with understanding
Good Luck

(25/11/2012 22:49)msteens Wrote: [ -> ]it is not just the timetable, when you get copies of the correspondance from between ourselves and merseytravel maybe that be help you with understanding
Good Luck

Can you not elaborate on the forum?

You are in a very good position to be able to put Impera's view forward.

What exactly went on?

All you've said is timetable and vandalism. If it isn't the timetable, are you saying it was the windows?

I hold no bad views on Impera, but I can tell when things aren't adding up.

Impera would have still turned a profit on these routes, (assuming they didn't price themselves too low in the first place), even if they had to self-fund the windows being smashed.

(25/11/2012 20:36)msteens Wrote: [ -> ]I was dead on time in Liverpool One today but 6 Minutes late when i got to Ullet Road and that is with my foot down and out of my comfort zone. I was 4 Minutes late out of Ullet Road and that is changing my ETM and Destinations at lights. This route needs serious time changes on Sunday between 11am and 5pm and Monday to Saturday between 18:12 and 20:00.

I rode on the service three times today between Netherton and Liverpool - the 07:44 and 14:44 departures towards Dingle from Netherton and the 21:19 departure towards Old Roan from Liverpool. Punctuality wasn't an issue on my journeys. I do agree that the times should be revised on Monday to Saturday evenings, though, as traffic in Old Roan and Walton seems to hold-up the first few journeys and, as suggested, there isn't enough time to catch-up properly (so, consequently, the lateness has a knock-on effect).

Personally, I'm happy with the way that Impera have ran the 130 to-date. Drivers have generally been polite and have driven with care (although the latter hasn't happened 100% of the time). (As an enthusiast, I've enjoyed riding on the variety of different buses.) There were a few issues when the service was taken-over by this company, however there was with most of the companies that have taken-over the service recently... I'm also pleased with the fact that Impera have provided SUFFICIENT reasons for their decision of terminating the contract early; they've given enough time for another company to take-over the contract, so passengers of the service shouldn't be disrupted too much. If this contract isn't for Impera, then it isn't for Impera...

Timetable revision is key for this service's future. I feel that Impera should have confronted Merseytravel regarding their issues with time-keeping because the next company that operates the service will probably have the same problems (if Merseytravel have been confronted, then I apologise).

(25/11/2012 22:48)First Class Wrote: [ -> ]Keep an eye out

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/13...tender/new

I think that this was completely unneeded and unnecessary. Reasons have been stated and plenty of time has been left for another company to take-over the contract. As passengers, all we should be concerned about is having a fully-functioning service. If that's what we have, then what's your problem? And you've brought-up the 30 - again, unneeded and unnecessary in this situation.

(26/11/2012 00:35)3111 Wrote: [ -> ]

(25/11/2012 22:48)First Class Wrote: [ -> ]Keep an eye out

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/13...tender/new

I think that this was completely unneeded and unnecessary. Reasons have been stated and plenty of time has been left for another company to take-over the contract. As passengers, all we should be concerned about is having a fully-functioning service. If that's what we have, then what's your problem? And you've brought-up the 30 - again, unneeded and unnecessary in this situation.

I have the right to find out whether Impera (or any other company) is pulling a fast one with my council tax contributions.

You can't have companies bidding for routes on the cheap then dropping out before expiry because the route doesn't suit them for whatever reason, leading to more expense being incurred when a whole new tender process has to be re-ran at short notice!

Impera's reasons don't add up IMO. I am suspicious so I am investigating.

If Impera raised concerns about reliability, I am very sure Merseytravel would have investigated and, if required, amended the timetable to resolve this problem. This is a fairly easy fix. If Merseytravel investigated and found no problems, or refused to investigate, then that suggests something is up with the Impera version of events, or that Merseytravel does not care about timekeeping, and Merseytravel need a good kick up the backside. You, yourself, as a user and enthusiast, say that you have been happy with the performance of the 130 route, but Impera say there are serious timekeeping problems.

That leaves the only other reason given as Vandalism. If Merseyside police are aware of 34 incidents involving Impera services in Liverpool, they would be very willing to target that problem. Even with the vandalism, this route SHOULD be profitable, (unless Impera deliberately under-priced to win the contracts). Other operators did not have this problem on the routes, which again, makes me question the accuracy of this. Would a company really give up a lucrative series of contracts just because of vandalism?

The reason I mentioned the 30 in the FOI request is because Impera appears to be getting a taste for starting routes and subsequently changing their minds...

We don't have this fully functioning service you think we have!!

Arriva/Stagecoach>Supertravel>Cumfybus Emergency>Impera>ACE Emergency>Then whoever wins the full contract

It is unusual for a tendered route to see so many changes of operator in a fairly short space of time. This has only happened since the Independents took over the routes. The performance of this route really is dependent on which operator decides to bid!

(26/11/2012 00:35)3111 Wrote: [ -> ]

(25/11/2012 22:48)First Class Wrote: [ -> ]Keep an eye out

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/13...tender/new

I think that this was completely unneeded and unnecessary. Reasons have been stated and plenty of time has been left for another company to take-over the contract. As passengers, all we should be concerned about is having a fully-functioning service. If that's what we have, then what's your problem? And you've brought-up the 30 - again, unneeded and unnecessary in this situation.

A freedom of information request is just that at the end of the day - a request for information which is freely available upon request. Why should someone not want to request further information if they feel it necessary even if you do not?

As for the 30 (whilst another issue entirely from what was being discussed), I think that's a completely genuine request for information and regardless of whether or not it should have been operated or not based upon paperwork from a previous manager, the fact of the matter is that it was a registered service that did NOT run for as long as it should have done. I'm sure that if one of the larger operators suddenly halted one of their services ahead of a registered termination date with VOSA there would be complaints and there's no difference here - same rules should apply for all and that's no 'dig' at Impera either; my expectation of any operator would be that they run a route through to the end date.

I used to work the 130 route with CMT from 2000 to 2006, timings of an eveing after 7 were ok, the first few journeys leaving Old Roan chronic traffic delays on Copy Lane.

Sundays, well I would agree that between 12 and 5 the Liverpool One (PSBS as was) to Dingle would always be a tight squeeze especially when you were full heading into Liverpool from Walton. There would be a 6min layover at Dingle which could never be achieved. One way CMT tended to keep as close to time as possible was to schedule the driver meal breaks in at Dingle during the busier times (so at least the journeys would be to time).

Mill Street didn't have any speed bumps back then, it wasn't the nightmare it is now trying to get from Queen Square to L1 (the traffic lights timings are a joke) so Impera are probably getting delayed!

Also, the route was run with Volvos (drivers often refused or exchanged Darts due to the Volvos greater turn of speed and acceleration (often needed). There are many more sets of traffic lights along the route than what was previously the case!

Windows I only had some incidents along Rice Lane parts of the route!