(10/06/2021 21:52)Rick Hunter Wrote: [ -> ]No, different one. The one you refer to takes her kids to the nursery on Manor Park and lives in Tabley. The one that spoke to management works in the dry cleaners and travels to/from Northwich town centre. That's 2 people that regularly used the 16.02 to Northwich whereas there is only 1 uses the 15.58 to Macclesfield. There are also 2 Booths staff live in Northwich who frequently used the dropped Northwich service.
The reality is the 88/89 gets a subsidy from the council and the criteria for council subsides is there needs to be an essential need for the service which isn't met by alternative public transport options.
When things get back to normal the 15:58 from Knutsford to Macc and 16:45 Macc to Knutsford will be carrying more passengers than the old 16:02 Knutsford to Northwich and 16:50 Northwich to Knutsford. The Macclesfield runs will carry passengers travelling to Macclesfield Hospital appointments, adult education classes at Macclesfield College, people attending job centre appointments, as well as those travelling to work or doing shopping that you get on any bus service. There isn't a suitable alternative public transport service for those journeys.
There's a train from Knutsford to Northwich at 15:25 and another at 16:25. A D&G weekly ticket is much cheaper than a weekly rail season ticket for Knutsford to Northwich so I can understand someone choosing the slower, infrequent bus over the train if the times meet their needs. However, if D&G think they can compete with the train then they need to run journeys commercially. The subsidy is really for providing a service for Tabley, Pickmere and Wincham and it's logical to run it to both Northwich and Knutsford, rather than running a Lymm Shopper type service starting at Little Bollington opposed to Altrincham. Saying that I do think the 89 times should relate to passenger need and they should also take in to consideration that there's a 2 hourly Northwich-Lostock-Wincham-Warrington service, rather than trying to fit it around the 88/188 times. It would possibly make sense for Cheshire West to take over the awarding of the 89 contract and for them to consider awarding it as a combined 9/9A/89 contract to better suit the needs of passengers travelling between Wincham and Northwich.
I don't suppose you know what's happened regarding the person taking her child to nursery on Manor Park? As that's not the nearest nursery to Tabley I would presume she either works in Knutsford as well or there was difficulty getting nursery places at other nurseries.
(10/06/2021 22:07)Rick Hunter Wrote: [ -> ]130 was sent up to replace 137 but inreality it shouldn't as it wasn't fit for service having a front suspension defect which is why it was returned to Crewe for repair yesterday morning. 34 was going to be allocated to the 130 however 140 was sent up and the journey ran late. The big Solos are 37 seaters so can cover any Wincham work
The issue appears to be if they want to avoid Enviros going on to the 130 and there's only 4 Solos at Wincham then one being faulty means no Solos available for the 188/John Deanes runs even if they have big ones and don't have 3 big Enviros available.
Sending the vehicle off the Handforth Dean shuttle to John Deanes is another way they could easily add in a part 89 journey, meaning 89A running direct to Lostock? However, as they are unlikely to get any council money for that journey, as it would just compete with the train, I guess they don't want to bother.
She has now managed to get a morning slot at Manor Park nursery so she returns to Tabley on the 13.02 service. She used to live in that area which is likely why she takes the kids there rather than one closer to her home.
(11/06/2021 08:09)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]I don't suppose you know what's happened regarding the person taking her child to nursery on Manor Park? As that's not the nearest nursery to Tabley I would presume she either works in Knutsford as well or there was difficulty getting nursery places at other nurseries.
Another example of D&G's excessive padding in evidence today.
16:20 Manchester Airport to Macclesfield (it seemed to start short opposed to starting at Wythenshawe) departed the airport 30 minutes late, it arrived early in Macclesfield.
The earlier trips in the day though it is impossible to make Manchester Airport on time as the running time between Wythenshawe interchange and Manchester Airport is 7 minutes. On the journey in question, 16.00 from Wythenshawe hospital it does often encounter traffic and arrives late at the interchange. Now the schools are off may be different Handforth to Colshaw Farm is excessively timed as is Alderley Park to Macclesfield.
(16/07/2021 19:22)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]Another example of D&G's excessive padding in evidence today.
16:20 Manchester Airport to Macclesfield (it seemed to start short opposed to starting at Wythenshawe) departed the airport 30 minutes late, it arrived early in Macclesfield.
(16/07/2021 19:22)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]Another example of D&G's excessive padding in evidence today.
16:20 Manchester Airport to Macclesfield (it seemed to start short opposed to starting at Wythenshawe) departed the airport 30 minutes late, it arrived early in Macclesfield.
Did it not catch up time because it missed out the airport, handforth and colshaw completely rather than excess padding? Running directly from the cargo centre to wilmslow.
(17/07/2021 06:28)djb Wrote: [ -> ]Did it not catch up time because it missed out the airport, handforth and colshaw completely rather than excess padding? Running directly from the cargo centre to wilmslow.
Zooming in it started tracking in a strange place near the airport, so it's unclear whether it had just come directly from the M56 junction or whether it had just come down Runger Lane from the airport station. However, on checking it definitely went along the wrong route as it went the way an 88 service skipping Morley Green would go.
It still left Bank Square 8 minutes late and arrived in Macclesfield 6 minutes early though.
(16/07/2021 21:05)Rick Hunter Wrote: [ -> ]Now the schools are off may be different Handforth to Colshaw Farm is excessively timed as is Alderley Park to Macclesfield.
School holidays are probably going to affect services significantly over the next few weeks both through less traffic at certain times and teenagers, who aren't old enough to drive, waving down services at stops the service usually wouldn't call at.
I also understand Jobcentres are abandoning almost all telephone appointments with the default becoming job seekers again required to sign on in person every fortnight again, rather than just those who are most in need of extra support with their job search. It's unclear exactly what effect that'll have as obviously not everyone who is unemployed needs to get the bus but it will definitely mean some additional passengers on both the 130 and the 88 Macclesfield runs. It probably won't have much effect on the 89 as while Northwich has a Jobcentre people from the Lostock Gralam area will normally use the train rather than the bus.
If it was 137 it did suffer overheating issues so would likely have run private after attention from a fitter
(17/07/2021 10:28)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]Zooming in it started tracking in a strange place near the airport, so it's unclear whether it had just come directly from the M56 junction or whether it had just come down Runger Lane from the airport station. However, on checking it definitely went along the wrong route as it went the way an 88 service skipping Morley Green would go.
It still left Bank Square 8 minutes late and arrived in Macclesfield 6 minutes early though.
(17/07/2021 17:04)Rick Hunter Wrote: [ -> ]If it was 137 it did suffer overheating issues so would likely have run private after attention from a fitter.
Tracking shows 139 as having taken over from 137 for that journey, with 139 having been on the T3 earlier that day.