Forum | Merseyside Dennis Dart Website

Full Version: First Manchester
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731
(25/02/2019 08:47)Brickmill Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I totally disagree with "forced" integration. Even bus to bus integration isn't ideal unless between frequent services.

It seems to work in most European countries where different modes of public transport complement each other unlike in the UK (except London of course) where they compete with each other. A ticketing system like the Oyster card would help to promote integration.
May not be relevant to First Bus changes, but the Rotala group website includes this statement:-


"The Group performed well in 2018 and, with a strong management team and a comprehensive network of operating facilities, is well placed to take advantage of these continuing developments in the bus industry. Such uncertainty brings opportunity to groups like Rotala and the Group is well placed to take advantage of any acquisition opportunities that may arise."


http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/rotal...id=1228135
(25/02/2019 17:15)WhiteVanMan Wrote: [ -> ]This is whats happens in London, with buses serving both overground and underground rail stations.

I'm no London expert but from my very limited experience of mainly the Piccadilly Line, suburban LUL stations are much closer to each other than Metrolink stop s, they. run something like every 5 minutes and have proper seats.
Oldham needs a totally new network of services you have places like Fitton hill with no Buses to Manchester. and the 425 is really 2 services as there a long wait at Oldham. I would change the 425 to Run Fitton Hill then by park road to Alt then Oldham then back to Fitton hill along Ashton road with say 426 going other way round. You can`t fight the tram but you can get smart with your routes. Like run a Ashton to Hollins road then Limeside then along Oldham road and run a new service along 83 to Hollingwood then turn into hollingwood av then down Broadway then back onto 83 or doing that with 180 as this would give a bus to Morrisons and would take a bit longer then 83 but not much longer. and then there Manchester/Oldham to Halifax and even a Fast M60 link from Oldham to Hollingwood then call at tram stop then fast to Stockport and airport. even if just every hour it a new link and with the train line from Greenfelid and Mossey losing there services for over 18 months soon they a market there also to tap into. the 81 going to be going into a battle zone with stagecaoch and go ahead so I would cut
I think in terms of integration we are looking at two different things here, there are two types of Metrolink Services those that serve old railway lines that tend to be quick, but tend not to be close to main roads, and those which tend to be slow and run along main roads and are restricted by strict speed limits put in place.

Buses and trams could more closely work together, lets not forget when the trams ended buses took over they didn't compete with one another over direct routes.

Of course anything is open to debate and planning. Some bus services are needed because they reach places un-accessible to trams and also can operate more flexibly that said though were riders are diminishing something needs to be done either to get riders riding again or to cut out waste, that doesn't necessarily mean the bus service is withdrawn equally the tram service could be cut back so you have a situation were buses and trams work alternate journeys with integrated ticketing which might be to more people's benefit, or alternatively at the end of networks buses go onward's to estates offering alternative travel options, and also serve at the same time as a town service, or bus services change to serve other areas currently poorly or un-served. Busways might make another solution in that they cost a fraction of the cost of a new tram line yet can come off their tracks and run along the road so there is no need to change vehicles in anyway.

I think its all an open question.
(25/02/2019 19:26)Bevan Price Wrote: [ -> ]May not be relevant to First Bus changes, but the Rotala group website includes this statement:-


"The Group performed well in 2018 and, with a strong management team and a comprehensive network of operating facilities, is well placed to take advantage of these continuing developments in the bus industry. Such uncertainty brings opportunity to groups like Rotala and the Group is well placed to take advantage of any acquisition opportunities that may arise."


http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/rotal...id=1228135

I think with much lower finances they are looking at much smaller purchases, with say around no more than 80 buses at a time. Bolton maybe to big for them to acquire as its not just the purchase cost its also the cost of renewing the fleet, the purchasing system current operated as a few new batches every now and again all on lease and the odd recent secondhand purchase wouldn't be sufficient to renew the fleet at Bolton, lets not forget they are current withdrawing 20 year old Dennis Tridents at Preston. I just don't see them as a serious runner, the more likely purchase for these is the Arriva depots at Bolton and Wythenshawe and maybe an independent like Jim Stones or Vision Bus.
(26/02/2019 10:48)gilesbus1 Wrote: [ -> ]I think in terms of integration we are looking at two different things here, there are two types of Metrolink Services those that serve old railway lines that tend to be quick, but tend not to be close to main roads, and those which tend to be slow and run along main roads and are restricted by strict speed limits put in place.

Buses and trams could more closely work together, lets not forget when the trams ended buses took over they didn't compete with one another over direct routes.

Of course anything is open to debate and planning. Some bus services are needed because they reach places un-accessible to trams and also can operate more flexibly that said though were riders are diminishing something needs to be done either to get riders riding again or to cut out waste, that doesn't necessarily mean the bus service is withdrawn equally the tram service could be cut back so you have a situation were buses and trams work alternate journeys with integrated ticketing which might be to more people's benefit, or alternatively at the end of networks buses go onward's to estates offering alternative travel options, and also serve at the same time as a town service, or bus services change to serve other areas currently poorly or un-served. Busways might make another solution in that they cost a fraction of the cost of a new tram line yet can come off their tracks and run along the road so there is no need to change vehicles in anyway.

I think its all an open question.

I don't know if anyone can confirm but didn't "proper" suburban trams have stops much closer together than LRT? Also, the massive capital cost of Rail means there is no way any cuts in service levels will be tolerated. You are right to differentiate between the original Phase 1 Metrolink replacing existing Rail through relatively high car ownership areas, and Phase 3+
(26/02/2019 15:49)Brickmill Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if anyone can confirm but didn't "proper" suburban trams have stops much closer together than LRT? Also, the massive capital cost of Rail means there is no way any cuts in service levels will be tolerated. You are right to differentiate between the original Phase 1 Metrolink replacing existing Rail through relatively high car ownership areas, and Phase 3+

Yep your right stops would have been like bus stops on original tram networks, and yes Metrolink is based on the rail network in about 70% services, although unsure if they are all on high car ownership area. The Altrincham Line, The Didsbury line places would be, and parts of the Eccles line in Salford Quays. Thought wouldn't think that the Oldham/Rochdale, Bury and Ashton lines would be high car ownership.

Was always sceptical as to why more trams and buses weren't put onto some of these routes with low car ownership.
(26/02/2019 10:54)gilesbus1 Wrote: [ -> ]I think with much lower finances they are looking at much smaller purchases, with say around no more than 80 buses at a time. Bolton maybe to big for them to acquire as its not just the purchase cost its also the cost of renewing the fleet, the purchasing system current operated as a few new batches every now and again all on lease and the odd recent secondhand purchase wouldn't be sufficient to renew the fleet at Bolton, lets not forget they are current withdrawing 20 year old Dennis Tridents at Preston. I just don't see them as a serious runner, the more likely purchase for these is the Arriva depots at Bolton and Wythenshawe and maybe an independent like Jim Stones or Vision Bus.

The above statements aren't correct, I think you need to familiarise yourself with the Route One interview from Oct last year:

'Rotala now has access to £50 Million war chest, through its banking partner HSBC.....'
http://www.route-one.net/magazines/emag/...ge_32.html
(26/02/2019 15:57)gilesbus1 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep your right stops would have been like bus stops on original tram networks, and yes Metrolink is based on the rail network in about 70% services, although unsure if they are all on high car ownership area. The Altrincham Line, The Didsbury line places would be, and parts of the Eccles line in Salford Quays. Thought wouldn't think that the Oldham/Rochdale, Bury and Ashton lines would be high car ownership.

Was always sceptical as to why more trams and buses weren't put onto some of these routes with low car ownership.

Sorry, got cut off! Meant to say that Phase 3 is completely different in that it does serve many low car ownership areas.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731
Reference URL's